Adam Goodes has won a victory for every minority in the
country and in doing so redressed pain I endured as a kid. In one blow he both
fought racism and expiated every adolescent like me who failed to fight every
fight that presented itself. I sit here
barely stifling the tears of gratitude and guilt. The man is an inspiration.
The indigenous Sydney football great was straying near the boundary
when a 13 year old called him an “ape”.
This epithet is clearly racist and Adam has testified since that he was
often called a monkey or an ape. An
appalling situation for it was a clear defamation of his background.
As we all know, he identified the girl, she was removed from the ground and Adam,
reeling from the insult left the oval too upset to celebrate the victory with
his team mates even after his heroic best on ground performance.
His stand
galvanised the country. For this was the round of footy designated as a
celebration of indigenous people. To
sully this round with a racist taunt was awful and the football community acted
as one to support him and condemn the verbal abuse. Let me tell you that we have come a long way.
Racial vilification was de rigueur in my day. Homophobic ridicule was expected.
Adam’s refusal to accept the abuse galvanised the rest of us. The footy
community spoke as one to support him and his stand.
But Adam performed
even better the next day when he mixed articulation and wisdom with
compassion. He called for compassion for
the girl. He blamed the social context not the individual. And he confessed that
many times as he grew up, he lacked the confidence to confront his tormentors.
He had now grown in confidence and would not put up with those jibes that soiled
his youth.
This
resonated with me for as I was growing up in the sixties, anti Semitism was
everywhere. If you stooped to pick up a coin you were labelled a Jew. Those
with beards and yarmulkes were abused. The word “Jew” was used as a common
insult even though the Holocaust was still in living memory. And when someone
wanted to attack me they called me a “bloody Jew”. Seldom did I confront these atrocities. Occasionally I did remind my peers that I was
Jewish. They would say either “But you’re
different” or “So what?” There were
fights that I inevitably lost. So deep within me is this personal history of not
taking on prejudice. That is why Adam’s confession so resonated with me. His
story gave me absolution. It was a gift.
We need
heroes to share their vulnerabilities for it strengthens us. When he said that
as a younger man he lacked the confidence to confront bigotry, I was mightily
consoled for all the times I suffered in silence. Give that man every respect you can
muster.
His words
and deeds will be compared to the Nicky Winmar moment when once again, the
Collingwood supporters galvanised an iconic moment. In Nicky’s case it was one of the most moving
photos in Australia’s history. In Adam’s case it was his words and wisdom. Both showed how leadership and guts can
change the world. And the world has
changed but not yet enough.
What is
your view?
"In one blow he both fought racism .."
ReplyDeleteDid he? Since when is being called an "ape" racist? Have Swan, Watson and Riewoldt never been called such unpleasantries from opposing fans? I thought Goodes was being a bit precious especially as it was a young 13 year old girl. The police even asked him if he wished to press charges! How bizarre!
Personally I would call the doctrine of multiculturalism far more "racist" than what happened yesterday at the football.
Furthermore, the gesture of Nicky Winmar in that photo is as racist as were the slurs directed at him.
Dear Malcolm,
ReplyDelete"Ape" is racist because it says that those of darker skins are lower on the evolutionary chain. And it gives this message in a context formed by centuries of prejudice and suffering.
Those members of groups that have suffered more than other groups have to be protected more. Let me illustrate. I am an Aussie. Being called an "Aussie" or even "a bloody Aussie" has no pejorative or demeaning attributes whatsoever. But with the right amount of spite, being called "a Jew" (with no adjectives)can, by its very context, be threatening and/or demeaning. So different groups have different needs.
History is something we cannot escape. History creates a context. Being called an Aussie is benign whereas being called a Jew could be either correct or terrifying. Both labels in my case are true and correct. But one label might have different implications depending context.
When my wife calls me a hairy ape it is affectionate. When an indigenous person or one from African background is called this, it is deliberately demeaning and has been for a long time. The bananas thrown by racists on the Soccer terraces at players of African background in the UK were appalling and are part of the context which makes this sort of label racist in my view.
Stigmatised groups must be protected from vilification and "ape" falls into this category.
Thanks,
Dick
""Ape" is racist because it says that those of darker skins are lower on the evolutionary chain"
DeleteDick, I seriously doubt that the 13 year old girl held that view or even knows about "evolutionary chains." You have certainly not established that it's so. Also, why presume that's a term used only against certain races? Swan, Watson and Riewoldt no doubt have been called as bad or worse over their careers.
As a matter of interest, and in view of your sympathy for anti-vilification laws, what penalty do you recommend for that young girl?
Dear Malcolm,
DeleteShe has apologised and so the matter for her is at an end.
Dick
Sorry I forgot to answer your first point. The question is not what the perpetrator thinks but the consequences for the victim. Otherwise every perpetrator would exonerate himself or herself on the basis that a "comment does not affect me". That is not the relevant test. The test of tolerance requires us to be empathetic and judge the morality of something on the consequences for others. The consequentialist view of ethics has been my view for ages. That is the relevant test here. The consequences for Adam Goodes were palpable and there for the nation to see.
DeleteDick
"The test of tolerance requires us to be empathetic and judge the morality of something on the consequences for others. The consequentialist view of ethics has been my view for ages"
DeleteThen the Church was right not to "tolerate," and to incarcerate, Galileo. If the effect of his stated discoveries was to insult Catholics then the "consequences for others" demands that he be locked up. We must display "empathy" for the insulted "tribe" mustn't we??
I'm afraid the consequentialist view of ethics is entirely subjective and always reduces to emotion. If that's the best argument you can make against racism, then, you fail.
"She has apologised and so the matter for her is at an end"
DeleteAnd, if she didn't apologise, what penalty do you recommend for that young girl?
Well of course with the Galileo example we could talk about the balancing consequence of going with dodgy science.
DeleteThat is not to say that I completely disagree with you. I support what Dick says in the article but don't agree that it can be completely accounted for by consequentialism.
The example I would give is the distress that legal same sex marriage would give to certain Christians.
Suppose it could be shown that this was real distress and it was greater than the distress to gays at having civil unions instead of a marriage.
Surely we would still just ask the "Christian constituency" to suck it up rather than take this as a factor in our decision?
These are good points. The balance is always difficult Robin. I deal with my (utterly predictable) views on this in the next blog. It was going to be in this blog but Adam Goodes actions bumped it off. Dick
Delete8x
DeleteThe question is not what the perpetrator thinks but the consequences for the victim.
x8
Adam looks like a fairly resilient sort of bloke. What was the actual (immediate) consequence for him of being insulted by a 13 year old moron? (Oops; That reminds me.... Hi Mallywally!!)
(This immediate consequence is of course apart from having "Adam Goodes is an ape" repeated endlessly all over the goofysphere for the next week as the secondary consequence)
Additional questions:
1) Am I the only one in the least concerned about "rescuing the victim" from this extended secondary consequence?
2) Have you ever considered that raising this kind of kerfuffle whenever someone is called an "ape" rather than for instance a "moron", rather perversely embeds"ape" as the go to insult whenever someone wants to deliberately upset an (ahem) non-blonde/redheaded/freckled/albino player?
And most importantly
3) After all this, If I offered him a sympathetic hug, do you think he'd pop me one in the snout?
Dear Zed:
Delete1. Yes "ape" was only known as a racial slur in certain circles and that is no longer the case;
2. Yes we are losing the ability to hurl around a number of insults and that is both good and perhaps a little bit sad for the winner groups but great for the groups previously victimised.
3. No, men can touch now.
Thanks Zed,
Dick
My view - terrific article - I absolutely agree.
ReplyDeleteThirty years ago I thought we would have made more progress by the second decade of the twenty first century.
As you say we have made some, but not enough.
I completely get your tears.
Thanks Robin. Dick
ReplyDeleteI have subsequently read what the 13 year old girl said in her "apology" and it backs up my original impression that it was not intentionally racist.
ReplyDelete"The girl told the Sunday Herald Sun she will now "think twice" as she did not realise her denigrating comment was a racial slur"
and later,
""I'm really sorry for what happened. I didn't know it would be offensive."
The full article is here:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/teenage-girl-apologises-for-racist-insult-in-letter-to-adam-goodes/story-fni5f3kt-1226650580225
Andrew Bolt nails it!
Deletehttp://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/9292
You reckon? I cannot agree. Dick
DeleteIs it different to what he says on the blog - 'I detest racism but ...'?
DeleteBy the way Mal, I'm really sorry for all the times I called you a retarded, basement dwelling wimpanzee...
DeleteHad I know that this wasn't at all offensive, I would have endeavored to sum you up in a fashion that as well as being totally accurate, was also far more thoroughly demeaning.
Again; my deepest apologies... Ya goobleheaded putz
Mal:
ReplyDeleteBolt is right if you’re looking at this incident from the perspective of retribution. Clearly, the retribution exacted from the girl far exceeds her crime.
But the other perspective is that of deterrence. If you believe that racism is a serious threat to our society, and that racial insults of this sort are like sparks flying around dry tinder, then the vilification of this girl, no matter how unfair it is to her, may be justified by the strong message it sends out.
And I can't really say that the girl was 'vilified' in any real sense.
DeleteIt was a little heavy handed and the security staff did wrong in not involving her grandmother straight away.
I used to say racist things when I was 13 from peer pressure. I would have felt awful to be called out on it like that in such a public manner but I would now be thinking that whoever called me out on it would have done the right thing.
All the same I am glad that the club has offered her support and counselling in case there are negative effects on her.
Robin: "And I can't really say that the girl was 'vilified' in any real sense"
DeleteScrew "vilification." There is not a shred of evidence that the comment was racially motivated. In fact the contrary. She suffered a gross miscarriage of justice.
Terry: "Mal: Bolt is right if you’re looking at this incident from the perspective of retribution"
DeleteJustice *is* retribution! It has no other meaning.
"Clearly, the retribution exacted from the girl far exceeds her crime"
Yes, it was unjust.
MalcolmS wrote: "Screw "vilification." "
DeleteDoes that mean that you agree with me that the girl was not vilified?
MalcolmS wrote: "There is not a shred of evidence that the comment was racially motivated. In fact the contrary. She suffered a gross miscarriage of justice."
I wonder how many white people she calls "ape"?
I suppose those people who throw bananas at black players are not racially motivated either.
Kudos to her that she copped it sweet.
"Does that mean that you agree with me that the girl was not vilified?"
DeleteShe was certainly vilified - as a racist - for which there was not a shred of evidence!
"I wonder how many white people she calls "ape"?"
DeleteDo you?
Do you have any basis[or evidence] for your "wonder[ment]"?
Or is it just an arbitrary "wonder[ment]"?
There is, however, one certainty - yours is a racist question!
Racist question? Care to share the reasoning that brought you to that conclusion?
DeleteWhat about those who throw bananas at black players - are they racist?
"Care to share the reasoning that brought you to that conclusion?"
DeleteThat's a common reply with you but, this time, you'll answer my questions first.
It is a question I find I have to ask a lot and it never receives an answer. Indeed I hardly expect an answer, I just say it to point out that there is no reasoning behind such statements.
DeleteNow your questions? Which? Do you mean evidence for wondering? I am not sure what you mean.
Every friend I have had who is black has been called an ape or a monkey or have had ape sounds made as they pass.
I have never been called an ape or a monkey. People do not make ape sounds as I go by for some reason. Talking to various people this appears to be a pattern.
So it is reasonable to wonder what possessed her to use that particular epiphet to that particular player. Perhaps, where she comes from "ape" is a common way of sledging irrespective of colour.
“Justice *is* retribution! It has no other meaning.” (MalcolmS6:24 PM)
DeleteI can't let that one go by Malcolm. I had written a post agreeing with some of your early remarks but lost it when my computer froze.
I looked up “justice” at dictionary.com and #5 says, “the administering of deserved punishment or reward.” #5 (of 5) was the only meaning given that even mentioned punishment but interestingly it also mentions reward.
Synonyms for retribution are given as “retaliation, repayment, recompense. See revenge.” (if carried out from a resentful or vindictive motivation it is equivalent to revenge). I notice that justice is not given as a synonym.
For true justice to be done considerations like age, mental capacity and often extenuating circumstances surrounding the crime/misdemeanour are all important.
The 'justice' of the OT was 'an eye for an eye'/the Law of Retaliation. I think it's pretty obvious that this was not true justice. But what was important about it was that it limited retaliation to like for like. Compared to blind, insatiable revenge that was so much a product of those times it was much fairer and in that context could be called justice.
When Jesus visited our earth, he introduced a far different, more humane concept of justice which, IMO, quite frankly does not include retaliation or retribution. If punishment is deemed necessary it should not be from a spirit of getting even or pay-back but from an intention of putting things back to rights.
The person who has done wrong in this instance is the young girl. I can't see any fault with Adam Goodes. He would not have realised initially that a child was responsible and he modified his response accordingly when he found that out. Many adolescents of that age can look quite grown up.
The security and police have been criticised but as far as I can see were just doing their job. The only other person I would question is the grandmother who was ostensibly in charge of the girl. Why didn't she accompany her grand-daughter as she was taken away?
8x
DeleteI have never been called an ape or a monkey. People do not make ape sounds as I go by for some reason.
x8
From "The Forest People"
http://archive.org/details/forestpeople00turn
8x
The Pygmies that we spent the most time with in this region visited the villages only rarely, some of them had never seen a European before, and none of them had met a Pygmy from the other side of the forest. They examined both of us with attention. They pitied me for my height, which made me so clumsy, and they laughed at the hair on my arms and legs, which they said was like that of a monkey. A pink face poking out from behind a beard added to the similarity, and it became a standard joke among them, much to Kenge's annoyance. He felt that it lowered his own status.
x8
Perhaps you should grow a beard then? ;)
"The 'justice' of the OT was 'an eye for an eye'/the Law of Retaliation"
DeleteYes Ralph and that's "retribution."
I'll take that any day over "turn the other cheek."
You should learn sometime that justice and mercy are antonyms.
And that justice is good and mercy is evil.
I think you've got it backwards Malcolm. IMO, this is as crazy as your idea (sourced from Ayn Rand) that selfishness is good and altruism is evil.
DeleteFar from being opposites, I suggest that there this is no true justice without mercy just as there can be no true reason without faith. I agree with Rand's premise that reality exists independent of consciousness but believe that Rand's problem is her atheism. Reality exists independent of the consciousness of created beings but not of the consciousness of God.
The only way we can think truly objectively is to think from God's POV i.e. from divine revelation. Anything we learn and interpret in such a fashion as to exclude God is coloured by subjectivism. (I should mention that if one has a false or foolish idea of God the process becomes corrupted.)
Your/Rand's ideas suffer from the same lack as economic rationalism. It leaves out the human element - which makes it worthless because it's all supposed to be about maximising human happiness. Probably the most famous comment on mercy come via the character Portia the female lawyer in Shakespeare's 'The Merchant of Venice”.
The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest. It becomes
The thronèd monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings,
But mercy is above this sceptered sway.
It is enthronèd in the hearts of kings.
It is an attribute to God himself.
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this—
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea,
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.
Would justice have been done if Shylock had gotten his way? Is mercy “evil”?
A Biblical example is the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery. (John 8:3-11)
Would justice have been served if the woman was stoned to death? Isn't mercy a part of recognising the human condition and thus determining what truly is just?
"Would justice have been served if the woman was stoned to death?"
DeleteNo, justice is served if busybodies such as you, the mob and Jesus kept out of other people's business!!
FYI *justice,* in its broadest sense, means recognising the facts of reality and acting accordingly.
On the other hand *mercy* means recognising the facts of reality and acting contrary.
May the merciful be damned.
Thanks Ralph - beautifully put. Dick
Delete“FYI *justice,* in its broadest sense, means recognising the facts of reality and acting accordingly.” (MalcolmS8:55 PM)
DeleteI completely agree with that statement Malcolm. However we have a very different idea as to what constitutes “ the facts of reality”.
“On the other hand *mercy* means recognising the facts of reality and acting contrary.”
That sounds nonsensical to me. No one in their right mind would act “contrary” to the facts of reality but they might be confused as to what the facts of reality are and hence act contrary to them.
“May the merciful be damned.”
If the merciful were damned then everyone would be damned because the unmerciful already are.
RalphH: "... we have a very different idea as to what constitutes “ the facts of reality”"
DeleteTrue, but the facts of reality are still what they are.
“No one in their right mind would act “contrary” to the facts of reality"
The merciful do it all the time! If the police discover that someone is a murderer and let him go to reoffend that's mercy. They have acted contrary to the facts of reality, i.e., in this case, his nature as a murderer.
“If the merciful were damned then everyone would be damned because the unmerciful already are"
The merciful are damned by the facts of reality[as in my example]. I am not referring to those little voices in your head Ralph. They give you neither reality nor objectivity.
RalphH: "Far from being opposites, I suggest that there this[sic] is no true justice without mercy just as there can be no true reason without faith"
DeleteQuite the contrary.
Justice compromised by mercy destroys virtue.
Reason compromised by faith destroys the possibility of knowledge.
Just as surely as food compromised by poison results in death.
“True, but the facts of reality are still what they are.” (MalcolmS7:33 AM)
DeleteAgreed, one of my facts of reality is 'ex nihilo nihil fit' and hence I believe in God. You believe differently obviously from some other premised “fact of reality”.
“If the police discover that someone is a murderer and let him go to reoffend that's mercy. They have acted contrary to the facts of reality, i.e., in this case, his nature as a murderer.”
I disagree, that's not my concept of mercy it's gross (apologies Dick) stupidity or corruption.
Firstly you should have picked on the courts not the cops. Mercy involves the recognition that there are extenuating circumstances and the offender has shown genuine remorse and a desire to make amends and turn their life around. The paramount principle of the legal system, IMO, should be the protection of society/the innocent. With horrific crimes like murder or rape or treason there can be no getting off scot-free but if the circumstances I listed above exist there can be a lessening of sentence.
IMO, the release of Barabbas in the Biblical story of the crucifixion was not mercy – it was political expediency/corruption. If Jesus had been released it would have been an act of mercy because he was actually innocent.
One of the tenets of my particular religious tradition is that there can be no mercy without means i.e. a process. IOW deathbed repentance is a waste of time and a sham because there is no time left to turn one's life around and that's the whole purpose of mercy. E.g. in the adulteress story I mentioned previously Jesus' charge was, “Go and sin no more.”
No one is irrevocably an adulterer/adulteress or a murderer just because they have indulged that behaviour in the past. A person who harbours a love of adultery/murder in their heart has more the “nature of a murderer/(adulterer)” than one who has done the deed, is truly sorry and determined never to act that way again.
“The merciful are damned by the facts of reality[as in my example]. I am not referring to those little voices in your head Ralph. They give you neither reality nor objectivity.”
The only “voices in (my) head” Malcolm, are thoughts just as, I assume, they are in yours. The only difference is that our thoughts on various subjects are based on different concepts of reality.
“Justice compromised by mercy destroys virtue.
DeleteReason compromised by faith destroys the possibility of knowledge.
Just as surely as food compromised by poison results in death.” (MalcolmS8:19 AM)
Your third statement is fairly obvious Malcolm but the other two depend entirely on the definition you place on mercy and faith. If you place them in the same category as poison they're obviously a problem. I see absolutely no reason make that choice. IMO, it can only be the result of prejudice.
RalphH: ".. one of my facts of reality is 'ex nihilo nihil fit' and hence I believe in God".
DeleteDoesn't follow. That [originally Greek]expression is correct and simply means that existence is eternal. You made up the "God" bit thereby rendering the rest of your article senseless.
"Your third statement is fairly obvious Malcolm but the other two depend entirely on the definition you place on mercy and faith"
DeleteThe definitions of mercy and faith are derived from the "facts of reality," Ralph [MalcolmS8:55 PM], not your arbitrary, subjective "revelations."
8x
DeleteThe definitions of mercy and faith are derived from the "facts of reality," Ralph [MalcolmS8:55 PM], not your arbitrary, subjective "revelations."
x8
And certainly not from the arbitrary, subjective revelations of a rhetorician who had never heard of pants or a drug addled Russian novelist and especially not from some basement dwelling teenager
That would be REALLY stupid, right? ;)
I feel sorry for fans, who get so carried away with support for their teams, that they resort to this kind of sledging.
ReplyDeleteIf they knew what really goes on, they might not be so enthusiastic.
Mal: "I'm really sorry for what happened. I didn't know it would be offensive."
ReplyDeleteAnd now she does know. And so, too, do a lot of other people who in the future might have done the same thing but will now think better of it. For a relatively small price, our society is slightly improved on what it was last week.
".. our society is slightly improved on what it was last week"
DeleteDo you really think so? I don't.
I presume you realise that a 13 year old girl was threatened with having "charges pressed" on the basis of hurting a grown man's feelings - feelings which may well have no basis in fact. That is high farce. It's the same as being in the middle ages and claiming that girl has "demons." It's a witch hunt.
It's the sort of situation which results from diluting freedom of speech for anti-vilification legislation. Society is not "improved" - it's diminished.
Perhaps you could answer the question which Dick has twice avoided: What should be the penalty for referring to someone as an "ape"?
[Bobby Skilton and Jason Dunstall please excuse me - oh that's right - you're from a different tribe!]
|What should be the penalty for referring to someone as an "ape"?"
DeleteShe should simply have been asked to leave.
"She should simply have been asked to leave"
DeleteDon't be obtuse.
The police asked Goodes if he wanted to "press charges" presumably under the disgusting anti-vilification laws.
It was in that context that I asked: What should be the penalty for referring to someone as an "ape"?
None of the authoritarians who advocate these laws seem prepared to answer!
Obtuse why? You asked what the penalty should have been - I answered that she should have been asked to leave the ground. I am not advocating any laws against racism.
DeleteMal: It was in that context that I asked: What should be the penalty for referring to someone as an "ape"?
DeleteNo penalty for calling someone an ape. But definitely a penalty for screaming the word at a high-profile, black footballer in a public place. That is letting off sparks near dry tinder. Cash fine or even better a month or two of community service among people of a different colour. That’ll get the message out that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable. And while they’re at it they can fine the grandmother, too.
Robin: I answered that she should have been asked to leave the ground. I am not advocating any laws against racism.
DeleteBut if there are no laws against racism why should she be asked to leave the ground?
You can tell someone to leave a venue without them having committed a crime. It happens all the time.
Delete13 years old! Sheesh, if she can't be charged as an adult she shouldn't be chastised as one. Get the parents to front the media, if it was racist in intent that's where we'll find the rot. I agree with Goode's confrontation of racism but expelling a child in front of so many people and peers can do damage.
ReplyDeleteCertainly it was handled badly.
DeleteBut I don't think that even if there was a racist intent that we could necessarily call it "rot".
Sometimes racism is just unthinkingly going with the crowd. That would certainly describe me when I was thirteen.
Og: ... expelling a child in front of so many people and peers can do damage.
DeleteYes, it can, and probably will. But calling a black footballer an ape in a full stadium also causes damage, not only to the footballer but to society as a whole, for it’s the sort of thing that ignites racial conflict. And society has to ask which of these two kinds of damage is worse?
Think back to the Cronulla riots. One of the sparks that ignited that flame was a lifesaver’s taunt about Lebs not being able to swim. Do you believe that any personal injustice the lifesaver might have suffered for his insult outweighs what happened afterwards?
You're a harder man than me Terry. Whoever accompanied this child should have borne the brunt of blame as all acts whether they be reckless, dangerous, abusive or racist are part of the responsibilities of the accompanying adult/s. If a child hits me in public I approach the parent I do not take it upon myself to retaliate. One thing I do know is that if any adult approaches a child in my care and, for whatever reason, berates them without first seeking out who's in charge, is risking a backhander. If that was my daughter (and if she was I'd have chipped her first, but..) I'd have jumped the fence and taken Goodes to task. There are sensitivities to many aspects of being human but in the heat of the moment one does not trump another. As to the Cronulla riots, if, as you say, was true that an adult was racist it is an issue with adults and no comparison, children are naturally given the space to be wrong, it's how they learn and how they grow,
Deleteremember "from the mouths of babes"
Interesting take on it Oh Great and Powerful Og.
DeleteAdam Goodes after a 13-year-old girl yelled “ape” at him during a game: "Racism had a face...and it was a 13-year-old girl"
ReplyDeleteJust to cap off the farce:
Collingwood Football Club president Eddie McGuire has dropped a clanger on Melbourne radio, suggesting it would be a good idea to get Adam Goodes in town to promote the new King Kong musical…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/shame_on_the_withhunters_who_monstered_this_face_of_racism/
The circus has really rolled into town!! This is where this sort of Inquisitorial nonsense takes you.
Does this make McGuire the "new face of racism"? Name him! Drag him off air! Get police to grill him for two hours! Threaten him with charges! No, wait. McGuire is an adult and media superstar, not some 13-year-old girl from a broken home.
I eagerly await your update Dick.
Well it was clearly stupid and racist equating a gorilla with an indigenous person. Indeed the original King Kong was said to play into the racist fears of white America when it first came out because King Kong was perceived as a racist allegory with the hero symbolising Afro Americans stealing a white woman. An example of this debate can be seen at: http://raceandkingkong.blogspot.com.au/
DeleteWhat Mr McGuire said was so bad it beggars belief. He has been condemned and rightly so. But he is contrite and has begged forgiveness which is appropriate. He has been excoriated in the media. And this too is appropriate. This "inquisition" seems completely justified. He did a very bad thing.
Those are my views. Are they fair? Over to you.
Actually, I seem to recall that King Kong came from the mythical "Skull Island" off Indonesia which eliminates the Afro-American narrative. To the best of my observations Kong was simply of the monster-thriller genre with no racial overtones whatsoever. Much the same as there is no evidence that the comments of the 13 year old were racially motivated and some to indicate they were not.
DeletePersonally, I think the sooner the "indigenous round" is eliminated from the football calendar the better. It is racist by its very nature. Imagine the kerfuffle if we had a "white man's" round! The spectacle of millionaire, aboriginal footballers complaining about how tough it is under whitey's yoke is becoming a little tedious. I liked Adam Goodes but he has lost me with that girl. The colour of his skin is not the problem - more the thinness of his skin.
Racist problems in this country are mild by overseas comparison. What does exist has not improved since the Whitlam years and the black arm band brigade are responsible. Sticking aborigines in "indigenous communities" on welfare for generations has been an unmitigated disaster. In fact, although I'm an atheist, I suspect they were better off being cared for by missionaries. "Multiculturalism," another lefty disaster, should also be abolished. It's nothing more than national Balkanisation - the division of the country into warring races/tribes all scrambling for handouts at the others' expense.
Martin Luther King Jr got it right when he said that you judge human beings by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin. However, that requires you first recognise individuals - not races, tribes or collectives - a discovery of Western civilisation[apparently long forgotten] which is highly relevant here.
Those who are afraid of being offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated should read the last half of graduating law student Daniel Ward's speech.
Delete"If university has become a place where we can't offend people on the grounds of their political or religious beliefs, then God help us all (and of course I say that without wishing to offend any atheists). What has university come to, if a jackbooted socialist can’t go up to a Young Liberal and hurl all the abuse his limited imagination can muster? What has it come to, if we have to think twice before aping a former Labor prime minister and labelling our opponents "desiccated coconuts" or "mangy maggots"? Surely university is the last place in the country where we should see a policy like this. Because it is precisely the place where debate should be at its most vigorous and, yes, at times, offensive, insulting and even humiliating"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/this-campus-life/defending-rights-everywhere/story-fnhuzyzf-1226651634156
8x
DeletePersonally, I think the sooner the "indigenous round" is eliminated from the football calendar the better. It is racist by its very nature. Imagine the kerfuffle if we had a "white man's" round!
x8
Its not "racist" mallypoos its "racial", and on that understanding I'd certainly approve of adding a "honkys round" to the calendar as well.
But the one I'd love to see the most would be a "nobjectivists round". Now theres a minority everyone would happily turn up to oppress.
Unfortunately its a bit difficult to play footy in a basement so I doubt that it would ever get off the ground.
Perhaps we could approach the tiddlywinks federation with the idea though?
Mal:
DeleteAt last, you're starting to talk some sense.
I agree - this is where I have to admit that my initial reaction was wrong.
DeleteMalcolmS wrote: "Those who are afraid of being offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated should read the last half of graduating law student Daniel Ward's speech."
DeleteI take it that Mr Ward is eyeing a political career because he chooses to misrepresent the University policy by leaving out the key phrase that unlawful harrassment should be somethat that:
" ... the other person does not want;and .."
And by the way, I always thought that Universities were places you went to learn stuff, not have political debates. I don't recall there being any time for "vigorous" debate amid lectures, tutorials, assignments, homework etc..
"Its not "racist" mallypoos its "racial""
DeleteNo bigloonyhead, it's "racist." Period.
8x
Deleteit's "racist." Period.
x8
Yes yes yes, and age grades are "ageist", gender specific teams are sexist, suburban teams are suburbanist, state teams are stateist and national teams are nationalist.
In fact the only way to resolve all this "discrimination" is to just have one big team that only ever plays against itself. You should have no "nobjections" to that yeah?
What a pointless frickin dweeb you are.
Dont forget "social teams are socialist" as well zeddy.
DeleteThey'll obviously be quite high on Mallywallypoo the Jackbooted Nobjectivists list of proscribed demographs.
Off to the "integration camps" with them all.
zedinhisbigflyingloonyhead: "What a pointless frickin dweeb you are"
DeleteBut, apparently, sufficient points that you are obliged to reply dopey :)
8x
Deletesufficient points that you are obliged to reply dopey :)
x8
sufficient points that you are obliged to reply to dopey :)
There ya go. fixed it for ya dopey ;)
I have to agree with Mal. The circus has rolled into town. The point has been made. Let's move on.
ReplyDeleteBefore you do move on you should listen to Bolt nail it again.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/9375
But here is the thing.
ReplyDeleteIf someone says something on the telly or the radio or writes it in a newspaper or a blog, I can choose to listen or read or not to listen or read as I choose.
Back when I was at school and people would take it upon themselves to exercise their free speech in my face while I was trying to eat my lunch.
And if I got up and went somewhere else then they would follow me and start up again.
Those times the only peace I could get was the library because they didn't know what a library was never mind where it was.
Was I wrong to want respite from that? Was I robbing them of a right to free speech by asking them to please desist?
And when I would, in turn, exercise my right of free fists back at them - Wham! "that's Mr Poofta to you" then I would get dragged up the the headmaster and get the warning and the speech - you know the one about how violence does not solve anything.
Actually they were wrong, violence did work in this case. As soon as I started trading punches for insults I got my peaceful lunchtimes back.
But was I weak that this constant taunting and insults took a toll on me?
If we have freedom of speech don't we also have a right to freedom from speech - just now and then?
Your error is to conflate free speech with bullying.
DeleteThey are mutually exclusive.
MalcomS wrote: "Your error is to conflate free speech with bullying"
DeleteDid you read the speech by Daniel Ward that you linked?
Did you read the University policy he was objecting to?
Did you agree with him?
This policy is in place to prevent just the kind of harassment I am describing.
It is not me who is conflating free speech and bullying.
It is you and Daniel Ward.
No, it was you in the schoolyard.
DeleteEveryone should have the right to free speech. But not to someone who is not up for discussion. Then you must go find a willing audience.
Or to put it another way. You have the right to agree/disagree with my position - but not necessarily in my lounge room.
I can assure you that I never mistook that harassment for free speech in the schoolyard. I gloried in robust debate and argument when both sides were willing participants.
DeleteBut, strangely enough, you avoided my question.
Did you read the Daniel Ward speech you linked?
Have you read the university policy he is referring to, in particular that it refers to behaviour that ". the other person does not want"?
Do you agree with Daniel?
Bullying does not stop in the schoolyard.
8x
DeleteYour error is to conflate free speech with bullying.
They are mutually exclusive.
x8
Yet more addleheaded ignoramitude from the cAPEd crusader.
Robin:
ReplyDeleteWhatever you're smoking, it must be good stuff.
:)
DeleteJust finished watching the news. This Eddie McGuire thing is out of control. Now everyone acting like apes. No, make that baboons.
ReplyDeleteOn tonight's Footy Show they'll be going ape droppings :)
DeleteEspecially Sam Newman.
Ape is racist because of the suggestion that black people are less evolved and less intelligent than us oh so clever white people who conquered the world while Adam's people failed to invent the wheel or build houses and sail the world.
ReplyDeleteActually it wasn't white people who invented the wheel and us white folk copied the wheel the same way Adam's folk did.
It's racist because after Darwin gave us evolution, the people who failed to understand evolution, rubbished it by saying it we are descended from apes. As all of us here know, evolution says apes and humans have a common ancestor, not that humans are descended from apes.
But that bigoted understanding has stuck and so for the racist bigots, black people are not far up the evolutionary chain from apes who are black and this explains for the ignorant why black people were less technically advanced as white's were by 1492 or 1788 or what ever date you want because bigots think white people are further up the evolutionary chain when we are not.
Fact is that there is not any general difference in intelligence between humans, we all have similar brains and intellectual ability. The social and technical development of Eurasians is all down to the geography and flora and fauna in Eurasia, compared to Australia in particular. Here in Australia there were no native crops or animals to domesticate which triggered social and technical advances in Eurasia. After two hundred years, all that us so clever white folk with all our technology have domesticated in Australia is macadamia. Everything we depend on is of Eurasian origin. It wasn’t the black people who died of starvation when surrounded by food, it was those oh so clever white boys Burke and Wills
Calling a black person an ape is a racist insult.
My best mate is coloured and growing up in Hawthorn and elsewhere since has had to put up with this sort of crap all his life. It’s so subtle that I don’t even notice it at times like when he points out that when he enters a shop ahead of me and the person behind the counter offers to serve me first.
I’ve never had to put up with this crap.
Thanks Moonman. I forgot to hit the reply button but my thanks and observations are below. Dick
DeleteAs I said above, black friends have also reported similar experiences in the past.
DeleteThere is no question that the "ape" epiphet is racists. It may be, though, that the girl did not know.
I think that the treatment of her was heavy handed, but I think Goodes was right to call her out on it.
It could have been handled better.
Dear Moonman,
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for this. Collingwood is rightly be ripped apart by this stuff. At least the AFL is right on to it whereas Cricket Australia betrayed Andrew Symonds when it arose on the cricket pitch.
Thanks again.
Dick
For those interested, check out this link: https://theconversation.com/the-ape-insult-a-short-history-of-a-racist-idea-14808?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+31+May+2013&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+31+May+2013+CID_a501c9801a76594516448c2ccbb6faab&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=fallacy%20that%20reverberates
ReplyDeleteSo "gerbil"?.
DeleteAs in: "Mal Goodes is a gerbil."
Thats still ok yeah?
(Ape I dont really care about, but I'd really hate to lose gerbil)
Dick:
DeleteThere’s nothing new in this article. I think we all get why ‘ape’ is an insult. What we are arguing about is whether or not to censor it? Would the benefits of censorship outweigh the costs of eroding free speech?
I’d rather live in a society in which people say what’s on their minds than one in which they don’t. I may not like what people say, but at least I know what I’m dealing with.
Right now, thanks to the scourge of political correctness, the true extent of racism in Australia is probably being hidden from view. If so, racism is never going to be taken as seriously as it ought to.
Ooh!
DeleteAnd can we keep "slow loris"? Thats a goody!
Interesting link Dick - although a little tough on apes :)
DeleteHowever Bradley, being a modern intellectual, misses the most central point of this issue, thereby making the article irrelevant and his theme false. His conclusion [the power of racism] is junk. Racism is the most primitive form of collectivism and has no power - except destruction.
Do you [or anyone else] know what that missed central point is?
Terry, perhaps I should ask for a serious rather than than light-hearted answer.
DeleteWas the behaviour I described above an example of free speech which should be protected? Was I guilty of censorship in asked them to stop?
Was I supporting the scourge of political correctness (whatever that phrase may mean, if anything)?
MalcomS wrote: "His conclusion [the power of racism] is junk. Racism is the most primitive form of collectivism and has no power - except destruction."
DeleteThe power of racism is destruction. That is just like any weapon. I am not sure how that invalidates his point.
Robin: "I am not sure how that invalidates his point"
DeleteNo doubt. That was my point [MalcolmS8:01 PM] :)
Feel free to elucidate.
DeleteWhy does the destructive power of racism make it any less an effective weapon than, say, a cruise missile?
Dear Terry, You call "political correctness" a scourge. I would have a different view however. Despite occasionally looking like a kill joy philosophy that ruins the language and is a linguistic party pooper, political correctness, as the name implies, is mostly correct. If it is aimed at halting hurtful, divisive and nasty (sometimes unintended) abuse, then I embrace it notwithstanding its occasional misfires.
DeleteThanks again for your view.
Dick
bigloonyhead: "As in: "Mal Goodes is a gerbil"
DeleteROFLMAO
You're becoming obsessive!!
ADAM Goodes is the name :}}
Robin:
DeleteWhat you described is a case of bullying, not free speech. As such, you had every right to stop it.
It’s surprising you don’t know what political correctness means. The term is used so often these days. According to the dictionary it means using words that don’t offend anyone. But that’s not the full story.
Political correctness is a kind of emotional blackmail. It is the narrowing of the range of acceptable opinions about, in this case, racial bias to just those opinions held by a certain group of people. It has the effect of removing from any discussion about racial bias the give-and-take of rational argument by injecting emotion into the discussion. Thus anyone wanting to express a view about, say, the possible biological roots of racial bias is immediately labelled a ‘racist’ or some other similar word which evokes an ancient wrong.
I could go on, but I’m sure you get the gist.
Terry wrote: "It’s surprising you don’t know what political correctness means"
DeleteI remember what political correctness was. It was a movement that occurred in certain academic institutions in the USA for a short time in the late 1980's
These days it is pretty much used as any writer wants and has lost all meaning.
Terry: "What you described is a case of bullying, not free speech. As such, you had every right to stop it."
DeleteBut I should not have had to resort to violence, especially as I usually came out the worse.
In order to stop this, schools need to be able to tell people that they have no right to use language which is unwelcome and intended to humiliate, insult or intimidate - do you agree?
Dick: ... then I embrace [PC] notwithstanding its occasional misfires.
DeleteFor a view different to your own, read this short essay by Doris Lessing: http://www.southerncrossreview.org/56/lessing-political-correctness.htm.
Robin: These days [PC] is pretty much used as any writer wants and has lost all meaning.
DeleteYou haven’t spent much time on a university campus, have you?
Dick: "Dear Terry... political correctness, as the name implies, is mostly correct. If it is aimed at halting hurtful, divisive and nasty (sometimes unintended) abuse, then I embrace it notwithstanding its occasional misfires"
DeleteSorry Dick, that's nonsense and I agree with Terry. PC sure "misfired" with the "hurtful, divisive and nasty abuse" of Galileo.
It also misfired with Andrew Bolt and the Finkelstein Inquisition. Can't say you were too vocal in his defense then. The overall thrust of his comments were correct and delivered with the welfare of aborigines in mind. Also, aborigines such as Pearson, Mundine and the gorgeous Bess Price were in screaming agreement with him. That's the problem with collectivising/tribalising/racialising aborigines [even the white ones]. They are all individuals. Your appeasement of the "noble experiment" in the USSR in your younger days appears to have distorted your thinking on the nature of individualism. The antidote to PC is freedom of speech.
Hope that helps.
Interesting link Terry.
DeleteRobin: ... schools need to be able to tell people that they have no right to use language which is unwelcome and intended to humiliate, insult or intimidate - do you agree?
DeleteNo, I don’t. It is not a school’s responsibility to tell its students what language they can and can’t use. It’s up to each individual student to work that out for his or her self.
8x
Delete"Mal Goodes is a gerbil"
x8
Whoopsie my bad
Mallywallypoo Goodes is a retarded nobjectivist gerbil.
All fixed now .. ;)
8x
ReplyDeleteRacism is the most primitive form of collectivism and has no power - except destruction.
x8
Another one - rofl
You really should think about not getting quite so many of your foolosophical cliches from discarded socialist christmas cracker riddles.
Hmmm: On the other hand, keep at it. Maybe soon youll actually be reading at a kindergarten level
;)
Who is this Billy? Does her have a familiar ring about him??
DeleteWhy Richard dear fellow, I'm not surprised you've noticed something familiar about me.
DeleteAfter all, it was Mals concrete-like cogitations that reified me into this esoteric form of existence.
Mals misplaced concreteness zed might say, yet here I am an independent thinking feeling entity STILL WAITING FOR THE BLOODY PHLOGISTON THAT NOBJECTIVIST BOZO PROMISED TO DELIVER...
Ahem, excuse me.
Obviously I do have some of mallywallypoos more charming character traits to draw on as well
;) hooroo
Oh joy, a laboured joke based on a straw man.
DeleteHave you never heard of categories :)
8x
Deletejoke based on a straw man
x8
Man of straw? Dont be silly.
Hes made entirely from catnip dear boy
brroowrrrr ;)
Also, Malcolm, I really would be interested in your answers to my questions above:
ReplyDelete________________________________
Did you read the Daniel Ward speech you linked?
Have you read the university policy he is referring to, in particular that it refers to behaviour that ". the other person does not want"?
Do you agree with Daniel?
Robin: "Did you read the Daniel Ward speech you linked?"
DeleteOf course. I even quoted the relevant passage to which I referred.
"Have you read the university policy he is referring to"
In total, no, but I understand its content and intent.
""in particular that it refers to behaviour that ". the other person does not want"?"
Covered in my free speech V bullying piece.
Do you agree with Daniel?
On his every point? No. On the thrust of his article? Yes.
No - you simply made the brief unsupported claim that I was conflating bullying and free speech.
DeleteBut merely saying that there is a difference does not demonstrate that you understand that difference - which you clearly do not.
I described unwelcome use of language intended to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate me and you agreed that it was bullying.
Now you are apparently supporting someone who says that the university should not disallow unwelcome language intended to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate people.
And you are refusing to explain the distinction you are making here.
MalcolmS wrote: "In total, no, but I understand its content and intent."
DeleteI simply cannot understand how you think that you understand the content and intent of a document that you have not read.
Are you going by Ward's words perhaps?
A mistake, because as I point out Ward chose to leave out a key part of the University's definition of unlawful harassment. Here is their definition:
___________________________________________
"Unlawful harassment is any type of behaviour that:
• the other person does not want; and
• offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates them; and is either
- sexual, or
- targets them because of their race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, transgender, sexual preference or orientation (including homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality and heterosexuality), disability, age, carers’ responsibility, political belief, lack of a political belief, lack of a particular political belief (including trade union activity or lack of it, and student association activity or lack of it), religious belief, lack of a religious belief, and/or lack of a particular religious belief; and
• that, in the circumstances, a reasonable person should have expected would offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate."
_____________________________________________
Now, again I point out the operative phrase that Ward left out: " that:• the other person does not want"
So, let me get this clear. You agree with Ward that the University should allow the type of behaviour described above?
Robin: ".. you simply made the brief unsupported claim that I was conflating bullying and free speech. .. merely saying that there is a difference does not demonstrate that you understand that difference - which you clearly do not"
DeleteI answered that at MalcolmS7:05AM Please try to remain in focus. This conversation has concluded.
8x
DeleteI answered that at MalcolmS7:05AM Please try to remain in focus. This conversation has concluded.
x8
8x
MalcolmS7:05AM
No, it was you in the schoolyard.
Everyone should have the right to free speech. But not to someone who is not up for discussion. Then you must go find a willing audience.
Or to put it another way. You have the right to agree/disagree with my position - but not necessarily in my lounge room.
x8
pffft. My personal space follows me, invade it and there are consequences. If you were any kind of man you'd agree with that
And who's a nobjectivist going to argue with in his lounge room anyway ffs?
The pouffe?
What a wimpanzee
bigloonyhead: "My personal space follows me, invade it and there are consequences. If you were any kind of man you'd agree with that"
DeleteAnd don't you forget it Pussy.
lol
Deleteforget what?
ya goofy furshlugginer
MalcolnS: "I answered that at MalcolmS7:05AM Please try to remain in focus. This conversation has concluded."
DeleteIndeed, since I have shown the hopeless inconsistency in your position when you oppose the University of Sydney's anti-bullying policy, I can't see anywhere left for you to go.
Robin, nowhere have I opposed the University of Sydney's anti-bullying policy. I quoted the specific Daniel Ward passage to which I referred. You are a pretentious fool.
DeleteDaniel Ward’s comments have nothing to do with Adam Goodes being called an ape by an ignorant girl who is either bigoted or has not reasoned her way through the bigoted views of those people around her whom she got her ideas from.
ReplyDeleteWard is correct in saying that harassing someone for the characteristics they are born with is different from harassing someone for characteristics they have chosen and they could change if they so choose.
So it is alright to bag Randroids for their stupid ideas. It’s ok to bag our pollies for not getting rid of middle class welfare. It’s ok to bag people for thinking that there is cattle ranching on Mercury or that gods are bonking humans. It’s ok to bag people for barracking for Collingwood.
While Pies fans call Jack Riewoldt many unsavory names, I’d be surprised if they’ve ever called him an ape because his ball handling skill makes a joke of the opposition.
It is not ok for white people to call black people apes. Or indeed for Indian spinners to call black people monkeys.
Buzz
You're a great one for "bagging" Loonman. In fact you're a bag of crap.
DeleteYou seem to forget that they called Bobby Skilton "Chimp," Jason Dunstall "Ape" and that Fitzroy was once known as the Gorillas!!!
No doubt you think "racism" doesn't apply to whites?
Furthermore, Fitzroy had a famous aboriginal player who appeared unphased by the monika. Sir Douglas Ralph "Doug" Nicholls, KCVO, OBE was a prominent Aboriginal Australian from the Yorta Yorta people and was born on the Cummeragunja Reserve. He became Governor of Sth Australia. He was a lovely bloke who I met on a number of occasions as I went to school with his son.
He would have a black arm band dickhead such as yourself for breakfast and was proud to play for his "Gorillas." You need to go and get a life.
“Ward is correct in saying that harassing someone for the characteristics they are born with is different from harassing someone for characteristics they have chosen and they could change if they so choose.
DeleteSo it is alright to bag Randroids for their stupid ideas. It’s ok to bag our pollies for not getting rid of middle class welfare. It’s ok to bag people for thinking that there is cattle ranching on Mercury or that gods are bonking humans. It’s ok to bag people for barracking for Collingwood. ” (B A Moonman5:52 AM)
So who gets to choose which characteristics are inherent and which are not Buzz?
Why would you assume that harassment has any good purpose at all? What's to be gained from a moronic person harassing the good characteristics another has chosen?
If one harasses another for bad or foolish characteristics they may have chosen it's a form of self-righteous ego-stroking that stereotypes the other person and possibly get their hackles up and further entrenches their choice. Or it could descend into fisticuffs or mudslinging.
Have I inadvertently just described question time in the house?
Malware
Delete“A bag of crap” “dickhead”
Just how do you manage to keep coming up with such sophisticated arguments time and again? You must spend a lot of time workshopping them at Club Randroid as there is no way you could come up such brilliance by yourself.
“Gorillas” Sigh. Yeah and Richmond chose the name identity of the tiger because back in the day Richmond had an Asiatic demographic.
You know what the subtext is in calling a black person an ape and you know the context is very different in calling a white person an ape. The fact that the white person is happy to take on the name ape and a black person isn’t says it all.
As you say you knew Pastor Doug, then I’ll take your word that he was happy being called an ape and a bung and a coon and a nigger and a black bastard. He would’ve been a rarity. Back in his day there were no avenues for black people to publicly object when people were racist to them. So people wore it while hating it. Or some tried to put a positive spin on it much like Muslim women do trying to justify having to wear that disgusting and oppressive clothing because there is no way in their society for them to safely publicly object to such denigrating treatment.
Even today people think twice about calling out racism, as when Adam did he became the centre of attention of all the racist bigots down at Club Bigotry (sub branch of Club Randroid is it?).
It’s not a black armband view of history, it is our history.
My coloured mate doesn’t bother taking on everyone who is racist to him as he would be constantly in a state of conflict as bigots are not prepared to accept that they are wrong and bite back harder when challenged. So he holds his tongue mostly and seethes inside. He and his white wife did eventually have to take on her parents who didn’t like their daughter marrying a coloured man and that conflict was very awkward and unpleasant but the parents in law are having to look at their attitudes as they have coffee coloured grandkids now and they find it impossible to be racist to their grandkids like they were to their son in law. So they are changing their behaviour.
Are whites subject to racism? Glad you so politely asked. Yes they are when they find themselves the minority without social power. And Greeks and Turks are racist to each other and Poms and Scots and Japanese and Chinese to just about everyone etc. It’s still wrong.
Ralph
DeleteI think the only person who has ever chosen his skin colour is Michael Jackson and that didn’t work out so well did it. I didn’t spell out the difference between a characteristic of skin colour, age, gender and being a Randroid or a liberal or a secular humanist or a theist as I thought it was obvious.
Are you going to argue that Theism is a natural condition that you were born with like your gender and skin colour? Your religion has some seriously daft and obnoxious ideas and when you trot them out you will be called on them. Just like we call Malcontent out.
You’ve characterised debate just about anywhere.
If someone thinks the idea of cattle ranching on Mercury is a crazy idea, bag the idea and say why it’s a crazy idea.
If someone thinks gods bonking humans is a crazy idea, bag the idea and say why.
If someone thinks using mutual peace as an objective basis for morality is a crazy idea, then bag the idea and say why it doesn’t work and another idea that some else thinks is crazy is sensible and substantiate it and why humans need to have society.
If someone thinks it’s crazy to think the only purpose of government is to run the police and defence force to protect the fortress basement at Club Randroid then bag the idea and ask for where and when Randroidism has created a better, more harmonious, more prosperous society than secular humanist green liberal social democracy.
We bag your ideas Ralph and call you Ralph but Malignant gets further attention because he understands the obnoxious political nature of Rand’s plan for humanity. When you start to understand the obnoxious political nature of your religion you may get more attention depending on your response.
When we criticise people’s ideas they will at times get their hackles up and mudslinging happens but what do you propose – that we never challenge stupid and obnoxious ideas and actions because the other person will get their hackles up and will argue they are being harassed. Harassing people seems to be the only way to get changes. The other is to take up arms. Do you want to advance socially or stay still.
The Liberal candidate for my electorate stepped into my path the other day outside the railway station eager to engage me in the political process, until I engaged him back and questioned him on Liberal tax policy on the Medicare levy surcharge great big tax that Howard introduced without a mandate in 1996 and he scurried away. When I persisted in seeking an answer, I was told I was harassing him and if I didn’t stop that line of questioning the police would be called. If I hadn’t been on my way else where I would have loved to have seen the police action from that and the report that would have made its way into the local paper.
"secular humanist green liberal social democracy"
DeleteAah... just like the one that elected Hitler.
Thanks for the clarification.
" When you start to understand the obnoxious political nature of your religion you may get more attention depending on your response." (B A Moonman9:03 PM)
DeleteAs I've told you a number of times Buzz "(my) religion" doesn't have a "political nature" let alone an "obnoxious" one. It's more like a spiritual psychology but you wouldn't know that because you've never researched it or studied it.
My argument was against harassment, not against sensible civilised debate. Your description of you treatment of the "Liberal candidate" sounded very much like harassment to me. If you ever want to win anyone over to your point of view you might do well to suspend that type of behaviour.
RalphH: "My argument was against harassment, not against sensible civilised debate. Your description of you treatment of the "Liberal candidate" sounded very much like harassment to me. If you ever want to win anyone over to your point of view you might do well to suspend that type of behaviour"
DeleteWell put Ralph and spoken like a gentleman.
Not being quite so gentle I'll just add that he could also try wearing a deodorant.
Malodourou s
DeleteWould you like to borrow some of my deodorant?
"the one that elected Hitler"
You're scraping the bottom of the basement with this as a comment on racism in AFL.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of really lame rebuttal.
And of course you've activated Godwin's Law.
Thanks for playing this round, but you lose.
Ralph
DeleteThe politics of Theism is writ large in history and current affairs. You're fortunate that you live in a SHGLSD that protects your desire to graze cattle on Mercury.
Since you don't follow politics it probably missed your attention that you did exactly what my Liberal candidate did. Not answer my questions.
On a blog the only obligation to answer questions is to progress the discussion and have your credibility tested, so bloggers can scurry off to their hearts content when faced with questions.
This is not the case if you are putting your self forward for election as an federal MP. You can expect to be questioned on tax policy and answers should be given or you have a serious credibility problem. That is how our political process works. It wasn't a difficult question that I asked. It was just asking him if he proposes an unfair tax hike on his constituents. But if he can't deal with political reality, then he doesn't have to stand for office.
Just about everything the Liberals have said over the past three years has been about ALP dishonesty and lies over tax policy. Now the Liberals are claiming they will be honest so I gave the candidate a chance to show that he is better than the ALP and he scurried away.
I was not out to win the candidate over to my POV, I was seeking information on his tax policy.
Do you have a problem with this sort of questioning of politicians?
Are you really saying that asking political candidates questions about their policies and pressing them for an answer when they dodge the question is not something the public should do?
How do you propose to find out answers to matters of taxation that are going to affect you?
Oh dear, I've asked you questions on that topic again. The blog police will be onto me for harassing you.
"Your description of you treatment of the "Liberal candidate" sounded very much like harassment to me."
DeleteRalph you and reality have never been on speaking terms, you just make up what you want to be true.
I've been following this blog and trying not to comment, but it's become too much for me.
ReplyDeleteI've never been racially vilified, but I have been vilified. I find any kind of vilification distasteful. I think the initial incident was disturbing, and as for the football fella, words fail me. Racial vilification is a canker that can eat away at humanity if not dealt with.
However I'm just as appalled by some of the comments on this blog. Talk about tragic irony. I believe in free speech, and don't believe in the concept of censorship. Nonetheless is saddens me that some find it impossible to debate without 'vilifying' those they disagree with.
I'm not averse to wit and satire, but fail to see much of either in this particular blog.
Some have retained their dignity in the face of farcical so called debate, while others.... I'd say many forms of vilification are alive and growing in Australia.
Tricia, I think the form of vilification most "alive and growing in Australia" is the vilification of the citizens by the state. It's called anti-vilification legislation. So far on this thread we have seen the advocacy [at least implicitly] that people such as Mcguire and an anonymous 13 year old girl belong in prison for their "speech." My Gallipoli vet grandfather would roll in his urn.
DeleteYou're the only one who mentioned prison, Mal. There are plenty things which people object to without necessarily believing that imprisonment is the most suitable punishment.
ReplyDeleteFallacy of making shit up.