Thread: Calling People Apes Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025441
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
I know that we have had interminable threads on racism and language in the past, but I feel an urge to post this for therapeutic reasons.
Like Elihu, "I am full of the matter”, and need to get it out of my system.
On Friday, there was a football match here in Melbourne (Australian football, the real football to which soccer, rugby, grid-iron etc feebly approximate) in which which an Aboriginal player at one point called the attention of security and police to a thirteen year-old girl in the crowd who had called him an “ape”, and the girl was immediately and publicly escorted from the stadium.
She has since apologized.
The incident has received huge publicity in the media, but I have mixed reactions to it.
For a start, there is no justification these days for any adult to engage in deliberate racial vilification by referring to a black person using any sort of simian terminology, and we have all been sickened by footage of chanting soccer crowds (or sections thereof) doing so to black players in Europe.
That being said, the following considerations arise.
First, is it always wrong to use such terminology?
After all, it is quite common to abuse someone by calling them a monkey, gorilla, baboon or whatever, and in fact there is an elderly white former champion Australian footballer who has always been known as The Chimp.
Secondly, it raises again the current trend for the principle of freedom of speech to be sacrificed to mere hurt feelings, and dangerously confuses the immoral (racist abuse) and the illegal.
In fact, authorities stated that the girl only escaped prosecution because of her age!
Thirdly, and following on from the previous point, we seem to be losing the plot when a thirteen year-old girl can be treated in such a heavy-handed manner for just venting her feelings, in however a non-PC manner, at a football match.
Fourthly, and again following on from the previous point, it would seem that there is far more potential damage to the girl from being singled out by a famous player and marched out by security in front of a crowd of tens of thousands and TV cameras, and then appearing in the TV news bulletins and newspapers, than any damage which might have been caused to the player by a comment which was heard by only himself and the onlookers in the girl’s immediate vicinity.
To do the player credit, he stated that he did not want the girl punished, only educated, but that is not going to stop her life being appallingly disrupted, and the player, as an adult, should have realized that before he self-indulgently over-reacted to her comment.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
In my opinion, a thirteen year old should have known there are consequences to such language. If she choses to use those words, she got what she deserved.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
First, is it always wrong to use such terminology?
After all, it is quite common to abuse someone by calling them a monkey, gorilla, baboon or whatever, and in fact there is an elderly white former champion Australian footballer who has always been known as The Chimp.
Relevance of this to the long-standing use of "ape" as a racial slur would be .... ????
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
I agree with you, Kaplan, on the free-speech issue. I'm pretty much libertarian when it comes to that sort of thing.
However, public reaction is a different matter, as there is no legal right to receive warm fuzzies in response to your every utterance. Nor is there a legal right to stay on someone else's property(which is what a football stadium is) after you've said things that tick them off. On that note...
quote:
Thirdly, and following on from the previous point, we seem to be losing the plot when a thirteen year-old girl can be treated in such a heavy-handed manner for just venting her feelings, in however a non-PC manner, at a football match.
I dunno. If it was a 13 year old boy who looked like this, getting kicked out of the local mall for shouting racial slurs at black people, would anyone be saying "Aw, he was just venting his feelings in a non-PC manner, no need to be so heavy-handed about it"? I think the general attitude would be "Well, ya act like a racist jackass in a privately owned space, ya get kicked out. Welcome to the adult world, kid". I personally would not worry too much about the long-term effect on the jerk's emotional development.
Now, granted, in my sceanrio, it might not provoke the kind of media reaction that occured in Australia, because no one is paying much attention to what goes on at the local mall. But still, the girl knew she was attending a widely watched public event, so she should have foreseen that there might be some blowback for shouting racial slurs in that milieu.
[ 26. May 2013, 04:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I dunno. If it was a 13 year old boy getting kicked out of the local mall for shouting racial slurs at black people, would anyone be saying "Aw, he was just venting his feelings in a non-PC manner, no need to be so heavy-handed about it"? I think the general attitude would be "Well, ya act like a racist jackass in a privately owned space, ya get kicked out. Welcome to the adult world, kid". I personally would not worry too much about the long-term effect on the jerk's emotional development.
Yes, I see your point, but we usually cut a bit of slack for comments (repulsive though we might find them) uttered on the spur of the moment at an excited atmosphere such as a football match, which we would not tolerate if they were spoken elsewhere.
Just to get away from race for a moment, football spectators get away with yelling comments about the sexual proclivities of players' mothers, but if they made a considered choice to go to a shopping mall and randomly address passers-by in such terms, they would be evicted or arrested.
Also, it is not clear whether the girl realised the racial associations, in today's culture, of calling the player an ape.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Also, it is not clear whether the girl realised the racial associations, in today's culture, of calling the player an ape.
Oh, I am sure she realizes it now.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
White person calling a person of color an "ape"? Especially when it's intended as an insult? Always wrong.
I don't know what the girl intended. Maybe the situation could've been handled in a more low-key way, particularly since adult sports fans often hurl all sorts of abuse at athletes.
But what she did was wrong.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I wonder what the girl expected when she shouted the insult. In my experience, when people shout things out at sports events they generally hope for the approval of the people sitting around them in the stands. For them to join in is the height of approval. Then you have fifty people shouting 'Ape!' and a warm glow in the heart of the person who first had the idea to do it.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
I wonder what the girl expected when she shouted the insult. In my experience, when people shout things out at sports events they generally hope for the approval of the people sitting around them in the stands. For them to join in is the height of approval. Then you have fifty people shouting 'Ape!' and a warm glow in the heart of the person who first had the idea to do it.
That would quite likely have been the case in the past, but for years now the Australian Football League has pursued a zero-tolerance policy on racist abuse which adults, at least, understand.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
First, is it always wrong to use such terminology?
After all, it is quite common to abuse someone by calling them a monkey, gorilla, baboon or whatever, and in fact there is an elderly white former champion Australian footballer who has always been known as The Chimp.
Relevance of this to the long-standing use of "ape" as a racial slur would be .... ????
The Chimp was so called because he was genuinely believed to look like a monkey.
As a friend to whom I was speaking at church this morning pointed out, the Aboriginal player in question as quite long arms, and if he were white, there would be no problem in someone's calling him an ape.
This raises the issue of whether it is in fact racist to refrain from insulting a black player in a way in which you might readily insult him if he were not black.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
English motoring magazines used refer to the seating in Italian cars as being suitable for the Italian Standard Ape - long arms to the steering wheel, short legs to the pedals. Even in the 70s, this was offensive.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
To add to the story this weekend is the Indigenous round, which focuses on the input Aboriginal players have made to AFL footy and highlights the importance of reconciliation. So to yell a racist comment during this round is even more significant than usual. The minority of people with racist attitudes probably think it is unnecessary and unfair that there isn't a 'white players round'. Apparently another Collingwood supporter has been caught yelling at the umpires about favoring the Aboriginal players because it is the Indigenous Round (but not the Aboriginal players on his side of course).
I agree this incident will probably have a bad affect on the girl's life, but there is a zero policy on racism at AFL games and everyone knows it. The game was nearly over and Goodes' team, Sydney, was easily beating Collingwood so the comment was not made in the heat of the moment - the girl was just angry at Goodes because he was one of the best players on the ground.
The girl has since spoken to Goodes and apologised. She probably didn't realise the impact her comments would have. Goodes had been bullied for his appearance and race at school so may have reacted more heatedly than otherwise, however he left it up to security to deal with and may have not realised they would kick a thirteen year old out of the ground.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Looks like it may have been a "growing up" experience for the 13 year old girl, then?
Thinking about whether the insult is racial or not takes us back to a time when it was quite normal for some human beings to be regarded as subhuman because of their race. More akin to other primates than human. Hard for us to believe that's what many folks thought in the past, but it is so. "Lesser breeds under the sun" and all that. The kind of thinking which rationalised the slave trade and other kinds of discrimination as well. It's rightly seen as obnoxious and wrong-headed today, but relatively normal then. And there are still hangovers of that in the minds of some folks today.
That's the problem with "ape" or "chimp". For someone of Caucasian origins, there isn't a problem - clearly it's about how hairy you are or how long your arms are. It's different if you belong to a race which has been classified historically as subhuman. It changes the nature of the insult, doesn't it?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
The girl has since spoken to Goodes and apologised.
And so she should. Hopefully all the publicity this is getting will move attitudes in a positive direction too.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Another way of putting the question is: is it OK to use such terminology where no racial implications can be drawn?
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
Just a couple of quick responses to particular bits below.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...it raises again the current trend for the principle of freedom of speech to be sacrificed to mere hurt feelings...
We don't actually know whether the player's feelings were hurt - we won't unless he chooses to tell us. We do know that the AFL has been clear about the unacceptability of such things. Perhaps he 'merely' thought these principles should be upheld when reporting the incident.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
..we seem to be losing the plot when a thirteen year-old girl...
I'd just like to reiterate what Stetson said above - what if it had been a thirteen year-old boy? Any different?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...can be treated in such a heavy-handed manner for just venting her feelings, in however a non-PC manner, at a football match.
So do you think the comment was really likely to be reflective of her feelings? If so, somebody was going to let her know how unacceptable they were sooner or later. Sad that the parents seem not to have.
Or - do you think the comment was more in the line of something
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...uttered on the spur of the moment at an excited atmosphere...
- in which case would we be prepared to cut Goodes some slack if he had responded by walking over the the sideline and telling her she was a nasty little s**tstick who should stay at home until she had learned some manners?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To do the player credit, he stated that he did not want the girl punished, only educated, but that is not going to stop her life being appallingly disrupted, and the player, as an adult, should have realized that before he self-indulgently over-reacted to her comment.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think you are giving the player any credit at all by calling him a self-indulgent over-reactor. It sounds a bit like you think he is the one at fault in this scenario. I cannot agree.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
What a bizarre thread. It's a racist comment. End of.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
To do the player credit, he stated that he did not want the girl punished, only educated, but that is not going to stop her life being appallingly disrupted, and the player, as an adult, should have realized that before he self-indulgently over-reacted to her comment.
Self-indulgently? Bit of a push there, isn't it? Initial over-reaction you might have a case for, but self-indulgent? Not so much.
In my experience, 13 year olds know what they are saying. It is control they lack, not knowledge.
12 is when I encountered real racism for the first time, and those little buggers knew what they were saying.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
So we understand that that Kaplan thinks it's perfectly fine for 13 year old girls to shout terms of racial abuse at players who are members of groups with a long history of being oppressed.
To enforce the rules of behavior required by the league is an appalling disruption of the girl being able to shout abuse in the heat of the moment and it's an appalling over-reaction and still worse "politically correct" and a disruption of traditional football loutish behavior that Kaplan cherishes.
So sad.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
I would recommend everyone read the transcript from Adam Goodes' press conference which makes his intentions to educate instead of condemn very clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Fourthly, and again following on from the previous point, it would seem that there is far more potential damage to the girl from being singled out by a famous player and marched out by security in front of a crowd of tens of thousands and TV cameras, and then appearing in the TV news bulletins and newspapers, than any damage which might have been caused to the player by a comment which was heard by only himself and the onlookers in the girl’s immediate vicinity.
I think the decision of her mother to seek out the attention of the media yesterday afternoon was regrettable. If it had been left with just the girl being embarrassed at being seen to be ejected from the match, heckled by the crowd as she was escorted out and humbled by having to apologise it could have just been used as a teachable moment, yes an embarrassing one but still just a moment that could be learned from instead of anything permanent. Indeed, Adam Goodes (a man with a considerable reputation for advancing Reconciliation and education about racism in Australia) did explain to her on the phone why this was an insult which is very offensive to Indigenous Australians.
If it had been left there and a short statement issued by the AFL confirmed an apology had been accepted a line could have been drawn under incident. However, her mother then sought out publicity from the media and now we all know her name, there's a good photo of her in the papers and on the web (as opposed to a brief shot on TV of her being ejected where she's not clearly identifiable) and there's no chance of it being completely left in the past from the public point of view - down the track a future employer will Google her name and these media stories will come up.
When they go through the court system in any capacity in Australia, minors have their identity suppressed from publication for very good reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In fact, authorities stated that the girl only escaped prosecution because of her age!
When was this said? I heard last night that they did not consider prosecution purely because Adam Goodes requested that they not prosecute.
I think that the shame of the incident (getting ejected, causing out of the ground) should have been enough of a lesson without any prosecution, but I would not object if the victim of abuse like that did choose to press charges or request a life ban from that venue. In my opinion Adam Goodes made the right call, and a courageous one at that, to use this as a teachable moment for both the perpetrator and for the nation as a whole. It is also good that his leadership in this has been respected by the police, the Australian Football League and the opposition club Collingwood.
As I wrote above, I think the only people who have handled this badly after the incident is the girl's mother who decided to seek the media's attention, and the mass media which seized upon her stupidity in going public as a good opportunity for a story.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This raises the issue of whether it is in fact racist to refrain from insulting a black player in a way in which you might readily insult him if he were not black.
When an insult has a long history of having been used by one group against another as a racist slur, the answer is no. It's all about power, not about the actual content.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
In my opinion, a thirteen year old should have known there are consequences to such language. If she chooses to use those words, she got what she deserved.
I agree, but the key word is should which you quite rightly used instead of will. While Nicky Winmar (a former AFL footballer of Indigenous Australian heritage) confirmed it was good it was a single naïve teenager instead of the thousands of fans he took a stand against 20 years ago, I agree that this incident shows that there is still some way to go in education about racism in Australia, especially in the consistency of it so it reaches even the stereotypical outer suburban white trash.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Cheesy,
quote:
I agree that this incident shows that there is still some way to go in education about racism in Australia, especially in the consistency of it so it reaches even the stereotypical outer suburban white trash.
Does not your second half of the statement demonstrate your first half. Or is my irony meter broken?
And I support the girl's eviction. But not the following evisceration.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
I'm not a Melburnite (hate the wretched grey concrete jungle) so I don't know if the white trash in some parts of Melbourne are real and a majority, real and a minority, or just a stereotype. That's why I was careful to point out I was referring to the stereotype and not endorsing it as my view of reality.
But come on, we've all heard the jokes about Collingwood fans before.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So we understand that that Kaplan thinks it's perfectly fine for 13 year old girls to shout terms of racial abuse at players who are members of groups with a long history of being oppressed.
To enforce the rules of behavior required by the league is an appalling disruption of the girl being able to shout abuse in the heat of the moment and it's an appalling over-reaction and still worse "politically correct" and a disruption of traditional football loutish behavior that Kaplan cherishes.
So sad.
What is sad is that you are either incapable of understanding plain language or determined to mischievously misreport it.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Why is it deemed to be acceptable to shout any kind of abuse at all at football players? I don't recall abuse being hurled at any of the competitors during the Olympics.
[ 26. May 2013, 08:48: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Nicky Winmar (a former AFL footballer of Indigenous Australian heritage) confirmed it was good it was a single naïve teenager
Naive is the operative word.
I can't believe the pharisaical judgmentalism which was directed against her in the first instance, and is now being wallowed in on this thread.
Yes, she did the wrong thing, and of course we have to learn from our mistakes as we grow up, but how many of us would have thought it appropriate to cop that sort of treatment for the sort of stupid and mindless things we said or did when we were that age?
If Goodes had simply told her she was a shitwit (as suggested upthread) and that he was offended by her comment, that would have been enough.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Lesser breeds under the sun"
There is a theory, which I think originated with Orwell, that Kipling was in fact referring to the Germans, whom he he regarded as arrogant ("such boastings as the Gentiles use....").
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
These things tend to be contextually determined, don't they? In the UK, I think any racial slur in a football ground will get you marched out of the ground, and probably arrested. But you can call the referee a wanker of a twat, and nobody will turn a hair. In parts of Europe, racist chanting seems to be permitted still.
The hot issue in the UK is gay players - will they be able to come out? I'm not sure that I would trust the football crowd to resist homophobic slurs.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If Goodes had simply told her she was a shitwit (as suggested upthread) and that he was offended by her comment, that would have been enough.
No, because he's an upstanding leader in the Indigenous Australian community who wouldn't stoop that low to get in an ugly confrontation.
Being ejected from the ground made it a "shit, I must have done something really bad to have even my fellow Collingwood fans being that angry at me" moment. A hot-tempered reply from Goodes would have made it a "he's picking a fight with me" moment and allowed no realisation of wrongdoing.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I don't recall abuse being hurled at any of the competitors during the Olympics.
Was your TV not working during the Olympics? Not during, for example, Anna Meares' winning ride when she was heckled by the parochial British home crowd?
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Immediate reaction on reading the OP - I think I would blame the parents for the fact that she has reached that age and has not learnt that to use the term in a derisory and insulting way is not even remotely allowable.
The word 'ape' used in a discussion of evolution and species is a different matter altogether.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
From what the giant cheeseburgersays, it would seem that the mother is out to gain media attention and perhapsthinks this will give her some kind of fame? Sad, if so.
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
English motoring magazines used refer to the seating in Italian cars as being suitable for the Italian Standard Ape - long arms to the steering wheel, short legs to the pedals. Even in the 70s, this was offensive.
I've always fancied an Italian Ape, I think they look cute. But we digress.
I'm not Australian, but can't see how calling an Aborigine an 'ape' can ever be justified (and would've thought that any thinking 13-year old Australian would know this).
[ 26. May 2013, 10:40: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Kaplan:
Good point about the limitations of my stadium/shopping mall comparison. But the basic argument still stands: No one has an inalienable right to be in a privately owned space, and the managers of said spaces are well within THEIR right to enforce certain standards of behaviour.
And, reading that it was the girl's mother who first got this hyped into the media pretty much tells me where the blame for any humiliation should lie. At first, I thought maybe the press had found out on their own that she was ejected, and then blew the incident up to sell papers and clicks.
However, it would appear that it was the family who were looking for a public scrap, and, well, now they've got one.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If Goodes had simply told her she was a shitwit (as suggested upthread) and that he was offended by her comment, that would have been enough.
No, because he's an upstanding leader in the Indigenous Australian community who wouldn't stoop that low to get in an ugly confrontation.
Being ejected from the ground made it a "shit, I must have done something really bad to have even my fellow Collingwood fans being that angry at me" moment. A hot-tempered reply from Goodes would have made it a "he's picking a fight with me" moment and allowed no realisation of wrongdoing.
No.
She would have been used to footballers getting abused by the crowd all the time in all sorts of ways, and to their responding to it as water off a duck's back.
If he had responded forcefully and personally to that particular comment, and let her know that he was offended by it, the shock would have been sufficient to make her realise she had crossed a line, but she would have been spared all the added complications which could dog her for years - and which, incidentally, would have happened despite her mother's involvement.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Lesser breeds under the sun"
There is a theory, which I think originated with Orwell, that Kipling was in fact referring to the Germans, whom he he regarded as arrogant ("such boastings as the Gentiles use....").
Dunno what Orwell was thinking then, because that line is not from Kipling ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In the UK, I think any racial slur in a football ground will get you marched out of the ground, and probably arrested.
Yes, if someone hears it and complains.
There is a certain amount of ambiguity.
The ubiquitous "You dirty northern bastards" doesn't attract the attention of the authorities. (though it confuses Reading and Watford when Brighton fans use it against them).
Someone got off in court from calling Gillingham fans "pikies", but they did go to court.
A 13-year old Millwall fan was banned from going to matches for saying that the Bolton player Marvin Sordell looked like a fish. Sordell complained that it was racist. At the next Millwall away game at Bolton some of the fans took inflatable fish toys or fish-shaped balloons and threw them about a bit and sang" Marvin Sordell, he looks like a fish". I don't think anyone was kicked out for that.
"Monkey chats" along the lines of "oooh! oooh! ooooh!" can get fans ejected from stadiums when used against black players. But fans are also in the habit of chanting their favourite players names. And there is probably no way to chant or sing about Danny Shittu that doesn't sound rude to someone or other.
quote:
But you can call the referee a wanker of a twat, and nobody will turn a hair.
Pretty much. "Cunt" is common too.
quote:
The hot issue in the UK is gay players - will they be able to come out? I'm not sure that I would trust the football crowd to resist homophobic slurs.
They already do, lots. Its one of the more common kinds of insult used by football fans against players. Casting aspersions on manhood in general, anyway. I suspect that nearly every away crowd will use pretty foul language against Brighton. Millwall fans regularly chant "you take it up the arse" against Crystal Palace (and sometimes other teams) and the song seems to be spreading.
As for the OP, obviously calling the man an ape is racist. And you'd have to be a pretty stupid 13-year old not to know that.
Personally, I think people should be allowed to call people whatever they want. So there ought not to be a criminal law controlling such things.
But on the other hand people who run football grounds (ot theatres or restaurants or any other places of entertainment) also have the right to say what behaviour they expect from their customers. And footballers, like any other workers, have the right to expect that their working conditions will be as safe as reasonably possible.
So yes, kick her out of the stadium. But leave it there.
[ 26. May 2013, 12:05: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
The Giant Cheesburger:
quote:
Was your TV not working during the Olympics? Not during, for example, Anna Meares' winning ride when she was heckled by the parochial British home crowd?
It was, I just didn't watch it.
But the question still stands - why should they have to put up with it at all?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I had a look to see what angle the mother had in going to the media. She doesn't seem to have grasped the problem herself. (Though with her surname should have had some insight into the effects of name calling.) But what was really eye opening was the letter from the girl to Adam Goodes. On a page torn out of a notebook, and in handwriting and with a style which I would have seen as not the best from the eight year olds I taught. He was absolutely right about her need of education.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I had a look to see what angle the mother had in going to the media. She doesn't seem to have grasped the problem herself. (Though with her surname should have had some insight into the effects of name calling.) But what was really eye opening was the letter from the girl to Adam Goodes. On a page torn out of a notebook, and in handwriting and with a style which I would have seen as not the best from the eight year olds I taught. He was absolutely right about her need of education.
Hopefully all of this has been an education for them both.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
See letter.
Media account of apology
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If he had responded forcefully and personally to that particular comment, and let her know that he was offended by it, the shock would have been sufficient to make her realise she had crossed a line
No, that's really not how racists operate. It would have got her back up, and she would be blaming that dirty black ape for not being able to take a joke.
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
At first I thought this was a thread about Charles Darwin...
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you can call the referee a wanker of a twat, and nobody will turn a hair. In parts of Europe, racist chanting seems to be permitted still.
Football stadia see a plethora of insults. I recently went to a traditional local derby where a player of the victorious home team at the end took the official announcer's microphone and made the crowd dance and chant: "Köln, die Scheiße vom Dom" (Cologne - the crap from around the Cathedral).
Should we outlaw the disgusting language on football terraces?
If so, why single out racist insults? Can someone explain why insulting someone over their ethnicity is worse than insulting them in other ways? Insults for being gay or being ugly or bald or wearing spectacles - a big one when I was a child - are just as bad manners but not punishable. Logically the same standards would have to be applied to protect everybody from group-related insults (although I also don't understand why these would sting more than individual ones, but for sake of comparison let's take only the group-directed insults).
The distinction of immoral and illegal is indeed the key point in all this.
Do we want a society where more and more immoral acts become illegal and perpetrators are put in the (digital) cutty stool for life (the internet does not forget)? Or is the cure worse than the disease? The law is a blunt hammer to build a decent (let alone a good) society and when wielded too generously it easily becomes an instrument of terror in the hands of the virtuous and the self-righteous.
[ 26. May 2013, 14:01: Message edited by: Sylvander ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I had a look to see what angle the mother had in going to the media. She doesn't seem to have grasped the problem herself. (Though with her surname should have had some insight into the effects of name calling.) But what was really eye opening was the letter from the girl to Adam Goodes. On a page torn out of a notebook, and in handwriting and with a style which I would have seen as not the best from the eight year olds I taught. He was absolutely right about her need of education.
Hopefully all of this has been an education for them both.
I doubt it. That letter looks very much like "sorry I got caught Mr Goodes, look everyone I said sorry aren't I wonderful!"
I would like to know what the mother did that warranted her including the Collingwood Football Club in her list of apologies though, since it was the opposition club which had player verbally assaulted.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sylvander
I would think it's because certain prejudices such as racism and misogyny are seen as so destructive of the body politic, and so potentially dangerous, that they become subject to legal restrictions.
There is also a historical aspect - many Europeans are aware that it's not that long ago that they were in charge of various imperiums, which reduced black people to the status of slaves or servants. These attitudes die hard.
[ 26. May 2013, 14:06: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
The distinction of immoral and illegal is indeed the key point in all this.
Kicking someone out of a stadium =/= arresting or ticketing them for breaking the law. Stadium rules are not the law. As has been noted above, owners of private property are allowed to set conduct rules which guests must follow to be allowed to remain. That has nothing to do with "illegal" -- you are blurring a VERY thick line.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Lesser breeds under the sun"
There is a theory, which I think originated with Orwell, that Kipling was in fact referring to the Germans, whom he he regarded as arrogant ("such boastings as the Gentiles use....").
Dunno what Orwell was thinking then, because that line is not from Kipling
Kipling's phrase was 'lesser breeds without the Law'. It must be interpreted in the context of the preceding lines quote:
If, drunk with sight of power we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe
Such boastings as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the Law.
The 'lesser breeds' were people who were boasting. This was certainly not true of the residents of those nations ruled by the British. It was true of the Germans.
Kipling was revolted by the self-congratulatory tone of those celebrating Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. 'Recessional' is an expression of his negative views.
Moo
[ 26. May 2013, 14:12: Message edited by: Moo ]
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
The distinction of immoral and illegal is indeed the key point in all this.
Kicking someone out of a stadium =/= arresting or ticketing them for breaking the law. [...] That has nothing to do with "illegal" -- you are blurring a VERY thick line.
Really? Apparently the lass escaped prosecution (either for age or because player requested it).
Furthermore the debate is not just about this one case, is it? Race is indeed a legally relevant issue these days, e.g. for determining the gravity of an offense or an insult etc.
Tangent: In German even using the word "race" would be regarded as racist language!
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
The distinction of immoral and illegal is indeed the key point in all this.
Kicking someone out of a stadium =/= arresting or ticketing them for breaking the law. [...] That has nothing to do with "illegal" -- you are blurring a VERY thick line.
Really? Apparently the lass escaped prosecution (either for age or because player requested it).
Furthermore the debate is not just about this one case, is it? Race is indeed a legally relevant issue these days, e.g. for determining the gravity of an offense or an insult etc.
Tangent: In German even using the word "race" would be regarded as racist language! I sometimes slip here because I occasionally think English and don't switch fast enough.
[ 26. May 2013, 14:19: Message edited by: Sylvander ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
The distinction of immoral and illegal is indeed the key point in all this.
Kicking someone out of a stadium =/= arresting or ticketing them for breaking the law. [...] That has nothing to do with "illegal" -- you are blurring a VERY thick line.
Really? Apparently the lass escaped prosecution (either for age or because player requested it).
Okay, point ceded. I forget other countries don't have our freedom of speech.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
Do you not have offences such as 'breaching the peace' or similar though?
Your freedom of speech might not be quite as free as it says on the label.
[ 26. May 2013, 14:49: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Teenagers are remarkably resilient, while this 13 year old learned a very harsh lesson, it is a lifelong lesson. She has a good chance to turn the experience around. Who knows, she may become an advocate for minorities as a career.
Besides, a year from now no one will remember this story.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I hope they do remember, as it is not an isolated incident.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Do you not have offences such as 'breaching the peace' or similar though?
For name-calling? No. Recall this is the country where Fred Phelps and Co. go to military funerals and yell about "fags."
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
If there was racist intent, then she gets no sympathy - her meaning was correctly understood and the authorities acted appropriately.
What's more interesting is if there was no racist intent...
Calling someone an ape is never totally complimentary. But in other contexts, such a comment could be harmless. How many movies can you name where the female lead calls the male lead "you big ape" ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Teenagers are remarkably resilient, while this 13 year old learned a very harsh lesson, it is a lifelong lesson. She has a good chance to turn the experience around. Who knows, she may become an advocate for minorities as a career.
Besides, a year from now no one will remember this story.
She has bigger problems, namely her mother.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So we understand that that Kaplan thinks it's perfectly fine for 13 year old girls to shout terms of racial abuse at players who are members of groups with a long history of being oppressed.
To enforce the rules of behavior required by the league is an appalling disruption of the girl being able to shout abuse in the heat of the moment and it's an appalling over-reaction and still worse "politically correct" and a disruption of traditional football loutish behavior that Kaplan cherishes.
So sad.
What is sad is that you are either incapable of understanding plain language or determined to mischievously misreport it.
What I read was "oh it shouldn't be done, but followed by a bunch of special pleading like "heat of the moment", "only 13", and "over-reaction" and "political correctness", "ruin her life" to moan about the fact that she actually was held responsible for her action.
[ 26. May 2013, 19:02: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
lilBuddha
I agree racial slurs at sports events are not isolated incidents, but what I meant was I do not think this girl will be scarred for life. The public will not remember her a year from now.
Recently there was the movie about American Baseball player, Jackie Robinson, 42. This is just beyond my memory, but I think they depicted the reactions very well.
One of the most memorable parts of the movie was when the Brooklyn Dodgers were playing a game in Cincinnati. A man had brought his son to the game. The boy was looking forward to watching Pee Wee Reece, the Dodger Shortstop paying. As the team was taking the field, everyone was hurling vindictives at Robinson, who was playing first base. The boy joined in the harragin, but then Pee Wee goes to Robinson and puts his arm around Robinson. The camera goes back to the boy who all of the sudden has a conflicted look on his face.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If he had responded forcefully and personally to that particular comment, and let her know that he was offended by it, the shock would have been sufficient to make her realise she had crossed a line
No, that's really not how racists operate. It would have got her back up, and she would be blaming that dirty black ape for not being able to take a joke.
Labelling a thirteen year-old as a "racist", as if it is indelibly written into her genetic make up is, to say the least, unhelpful.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Lesser breeds under the sun"
There is a theory, which I think originated with Orwell, that Kipling was in fact referring to the Germans, whom he he regarded as arrogant ("such boastings as the Gentiles use....").
Dunno what Orwell was thinking then, because that line is not from Kipling
Mea culpa.
I assumed it was an approximate quote.
[ 26. May 2013, 22:08: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
What I read was "oh it shouldn't be done, but followed by a bunch of special pleading like "heat of the moment", "only 13", and "over-reaction" and "political correctness", "ruin her life" to moan about the fact that she actually was held responsible for her action.
I repeat, we are talking about a thirteen year-old.
There was a time when thirteen year-old offenders were treated exactly the same as adult offenders.
They were given the same punishments - imprisonment, flogging, transportation, hanging - for the same crimes.
Today (to the regret, it would seem, of some posters)we have become a bit more compassionate and realistic, and things have changed.
We recognise that juvenile offenders are not culpable in the same way as adults are; that they do not always understand what they are doing; that they are plastic, impressionable, vulnerable and changeable; and that their identities need to be protected, so that what they did at an early age does not blight their reputations for the rest of their lives.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So, either she is a sweet innocent or a raging hate monster? Over-simplify much?
She is 13, so should not be treated too harshly, but neither should she get a pass.
IME, 13 is plenty old enough to understand why this language is unacceptable and to understand the consequences of not controlling your mouth in a public space.
The way Goodes handled the situation in the aftermath is the correct approach. Teach and let it go.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
She is 13, so should not be treated too harshly, but neither should she get a pass.
There was a recent case in Canada where a left-wing candidate in a provincial election was revealed to have made highly offensive anti-Chinese slurs on a website a decade ago.
People were also defending her on the grounds of age and immaturity. Thing is, though, she was 21 when she made the comments, and her own party has run candiates for office who were younger than that.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I have had a little time to read some of the Australian reports today. I understand some people have actually increased their vindictiveness against Goodes over the weekend. Typical. Call someone out for their racial remarks and the racists come out of the woodwork. They just don't like being called for what they are.
But if anything, maybe the incident will initiate a national conversation about what is appropriate and what is not. I see the schools will be disseminating some material against racism again (which suggests the girl may have had a class or session on racism before--in other words, she should have known better already).
What the girl did was objectionable, clearly against Australian football rules. Is she a racist? She is a product of her society. Having her called out for it shows her there is a line that should not be crossed, but it also shows society that something is out of whack and needs to be addressed.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If he had responded forcefully and personally to that particular comment, and let her know that he was offended by it, the shock would have been sufficient to make her realise she had crossed a line
No, that's really not how racists operate. It would have got her back up, and she would be blaming that dirty black ape for not being able to take a joke.
Labelling a thirteen year-old as a "racist", as if it is indelibly written into her genetic make up is, to say the least, unhelpful.
a. So you would only apply this method to 13-year-olds, not to, say, 15-year-olds?
b. I have seen many a ten year old and younger who would have exactly the reaction I have portrayed. Whether you call them racists or not is kind of irrelevant, and could be considered semantic nitpicking.
[ 26. May 2013, 23:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, that's really not how racists operate. It would have got her back up, and she would be blaming that dirty black ape for not being able to take a joke.
Labelling a thirteen year-old as a "racist", as if it is indelibly written into her genetic make up is, to say the least, unhelpful.
No, we need to call it what it is and recognise that it is racism that caused her to abuse Adam Goodes in that manner. Just because she's not a stereotypical skinhead doesn't mean she's not racist.
Racism is everywhere. White people are racist, black people are racist, those people we wouldn't call white or black are racist, you are racist, I am racist. What matters is what you do with it after your latent racism is exposed for what it is, which can (and should) be quite uncomfortable to work through, especially if it has to be exposed in the harsh light of facing up to consequences of your racism causing harm to another.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, either she is a sweet innocent or a raging hate monster? Over-simplify much?
She is 13, so should not be treated too harshly, but neither should she get a pass.
IME, 13 is plenty old enough to understand why this language is unacceptable and to understand the consequences of not controlling your mouth in a public space.
The way Goodes handled the situation in the aftermath is the correct approach. Teach and let it go.
I agree.
She hasn't been banned from attending any future football matches by the ground, the league or either club at this point. I hope she would keep going to the footy as it would be an ideal place for her to begin appreciating the contribution of different cultural groups to society, efforts to achieve that in her school and family evidently having failed to date. Getting seats in the outer instead of behind the boundary could be good though, especially after her face and name got splashed all over the media by her mum.
However, if she were to get caught again after this point I don't think all four bodies would have any hesitation in giving her a ban for a couple of years or for life. If a bit of negative reinforcement in the form of watching the footy or other sports on TV instead of at the ground (at least her team is on FTA TV every week) is what it takes to make her realise the impact her behaviour has on others, I'm cool with that. Going to the game is a good thing so long as you don't eat too many pies, but it's not a human right.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
This whole incident has become a storm in a teacup. The overreaction of Adam Goodes, the public and the media should be condemned. Instead we have the vilification of the girl who used an unfortunate word, but I doubt if there was any racial intent. Adam Goodes behaved very childishly by storming off the ground before the end of the match and turning on the tears over a single word that most people in Australia would not regard as a racial insult. Many of us have been the subject of verbal attacks, but we don't carry on about it. When I was at school, many of the kids called me a 'bloody Pom' but I ignored them and certainly didn't seek publicity over the issue. The more fuss is made, the more such offences seem to grow. Can we just close the door on the whole of this unfortunate incident. The thought that the AFL intends to give the girl 'counselling' horrifies me. Get over it people.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Adam Goodes behaved very childishly by storming off the ground before the end of the match and turning on the tears over a single word that most people in Australia would not regard as a racial insult.
What a coincidence, most people in Australia are white. The privileged don't get to tell the unprivileged what not to be offended at.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
...The overreaction of Adam Goodes...
Think about it. He could have reacted far more, particularly in the aftermath. He could have pressed for the full force of the law to come down. If he'd asked for a lifetime ban, I'm sure both the AFL and Collingwood would have obliged. But he didn't.
Think about when the incident happened. It's Indigenous Round. The AFL has spent the week spruiking the contribution of indigenous players to the game, noting now far the game has come in dealing with racism, and marking 20 years since Nicky Winmar's iconic action of lifting his guernsey and pointing to his skin. Adam and other indigenous players were in demand all week for media contributions. It's the opening match of the round, the Friday night stage, at the cathedral of Australian Rules. That's the context in which he hears the slur, thinks, "I don't believe it," and turns round to point out the perpetrator in the front row of the concourse. And is even more dismayed to see that it's a young teenager.
I suspect if those circumstances hadn't been there he might just have let it go by. But the impact of the insult, in that context, was significant; I can entirely understand his reaction. We were watching at home, and as soon as we realised what had happened, we felt very flat.
Engaging in a discussion with her at that point wouldn't have been appropriate, and he was hardly in a position to make an instant judgement on age or culpability, or on the long-term action to be taken. He was rightly gutted and left the ground. I hardly think he came across as a sook the next day, either; in his media conference he showed true leadership.
The same insult could have had a far worse impact on another indigenous player, perhaps someone who has only moved recently from a remote community. That it happened to Goodsey rather than anyone else is a good thing in many ways.
I do tend to think that punishment should not be entirely remitted by remorse (on her part) and forgiveness (on his). A membership/match attendance suspension of some length would seem to be appropriate. I don't know how long, either; an adult would face a lengthy, if not lifetime, ban.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
Is calling an Australian aborigine "ape" a racist insult? Presumably so - Mr. Goodes says he has been called "monkey" etc. on occasions before, and we'll assume that it's because of his ancestry rather than his facial hair.
That being the case, I find it hard to fault anyone's handling of the incident. With any luck, the girl in question will now understand that that kind of behaviour is not on, but should she repeat the offense, she should be looking at a long, long ban from football.
It is also appropriate, given the history, that racist insults are treated more seriously than equal-opportunity ones.
I am, however, troubled by the idea that it's acceptable to hurl any kind of insult at a player of an opposing team.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Adam Goodes behaved very childishly by storming off the ground before the end of the match and turning on the tears over a single word that most people in Australia would not regard as a racial insult.
What a coincidence, most people in Australia are white.
Especially in Tasmania where the entire Indigenous Australian population was wiped out a century ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Is calling an Australian aborigine "ape" a racist insult?
Just a tip, "Aborigine" is regarded as an unacceptable diminutive term these days, and you would struggle to find even a single person using that term for themselves these days. Use "Indigenous Australian" in written discourse or just "Indigenous" if you only need an adjective.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Adam Goodes behaved very childishly by storming off the ground before the end of the match and turning on the tears over a single word that most people in Australia would not regard as a racial insult.
What a coincidence, most people in Australia are white. The privileged don't get to tell the unprivileged what not to be offended at.
Goodes is far from "unprivileged".
A top football player has more profile, influence and clout, and earns far more money, than most Australians, including the girl.
And cliche or not, with that power goes responsibility, in this case to act like an adult, not a prima donna, and refrain from using it to bully a child over a stupid mistake.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Goodes is far from "unprivileged".
A top football player has more profile, influence and clout, and earns far more money, than most Australians, including the girl.
And cliche or not, with that power goes responsibility, in this case to act like an adult, not a prima donna, and refrain from using it to bully a child over a stupid mistake.
This is why you should be thankful that he did use his position of power (not necessarily privilege, he grew up with a single mother in the only country towns they could afford to live in) responsibly to create a teachable moment and a national conversation instead of going over and picking a fight on the spot.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Just a tip, "Aborigine" is regarded as an unacceptable diminutive term these days, and you would struggle to find even a single person using that term for themselves these days. Use "Indigenous Australian" in written discourse or just "Indigenous" if you only need an adjective.
Fair enough.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
This is why you should be thankful that he did use his position of power
I should be thankful?
What's it got to do with me?
I wasn't the one whom he used his power to point out, and then have dragged out by security, in front of thousands of people at the ground and in the television audience, to be then interviewed by the police, with the threat of possibly being charged, and then splashed all over the media.
If it had been me, an adult, who called him an ape, I would have deserved all of that and more.
A thirteen year old did not - it was grossly disproportionate.
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Besides, a year from now no one will remember this story.
The internet will. Forever.
Amazing amount of self-righteousness from all the good "anti-racist" citizens here. "No sympathy", "only held responsible for her actions" ...
In 1800 a child stealing bread could be deported to Australia. And all the good citizens thought that appropriate.
When my dad was a boy they stole apples from the orchard. The peasant caught them, clipped them over the ears. And all good citizens thought that appropriate.
When I was a boy there were no orchards. We nicked sweets from the shop. Had we been caught we'd have been arrested and fined and the youth department would have supervised our parents. And all good citizens thought that would have been appropriate.
In the meantime the Lord has descended and publicly declared that henceforth the One Unforgivable Sin for which no punishment shall be disproportionate is racism. And all the good citizens think this is perfectly appropriate. (To prove their own irreproachable virtue they try to detect every hint of racism in their fellow-citizens.)
And should the public mood (or the assumed Will of God) change again and once more declare adultery was the worst sin of all, so that some flogging, maybe stoning might be quite in order, all these good citizens would again clamour along: "no sympathy", "held responsible for her actions"...
In my Bible the main character seems to question human vindictiveness rather than reinforce it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
KC,
What happened to the girl after being pointed out was not under the direction of Goodes, so therefore irrelevant to your complaint.
Sylvander,
Once more for clarity, no one said "no sympathy."
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Goodes is far from "unprivileged".
A top football player has more profile, influence and clout, and earns far more money, than most Australians, including the girl.
As a child Goode had far less influence, clout, and money than a white Australian.
Childhood experiences and perceptions are hard to forget.
Moo
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
I have seen the video of the girl being escorted out of the game. She was not dragged out as the original poster claims.
How interesting that the original poster is now claiming Goode acted as a child. Isn't this a racist comment in itself?
I think the original poster needs to take a look in the mirror.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Sylvander
Oh yes, the incident will be retained in some, maybe many, internet servers until the end of time or at least until the end of the internet. However, just like the threads on ship of fools which finally disappear for lack of continuing responses, this incident will fade away from human memory.
Will this girl be prevented from going on to college? Not likely. Will she find it harder to find employment? Probably not. Twenty years from now, will she be stopped by someone on the street asking if she was the girl that ....? No.
I can't wait until one of Goode's people become Prime Minister of Australia
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sylvander, Once more for clarity, no one said "no sympathy."
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If there was racist intent, then she gets no sympathy
I'd say that Russ expresses exactly the attitude of so many here. Should we begin to publicly shame people for years over every little misdemeanour?
But racism (or even every single incident that might be construed as racist) is not a minor misdemeanour. It is a very grave sin.
It is indeed.
Because our societies have declared it to be.
Just like society in Jesus' days declared adultery a sin worthy of death.
Just like society in the middle ages declared heresy the worst of crimes (very appropriately, because it was seen not as an error but as a wilful "murder of souls").
Just like anabaptism was regarded as capital crime in the 16th century.
Etc etc
Human value judgments are changing and what is a major crime to-day may be a little trespass or even a virtue to-morrow. Shouldn't we be uneasy that so many good citizens and Christians are happy to shout at every racist: "Crucify her" with the mainstream masses of the righteous media?
Even if the poor girl really was a hard-core racist (hardly deductably from the evidence), isn't racism a thought-crime? Many people have burnt at stakes over the centuries for thought-crimes. I am convinced that the spirit that brought them there is a graver sin than the original "crimes", even though we replaced the stakes with other ways of irreversible punishment.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Sylavander wrote:
quote:
Even if the poor girl really was a hard-core racist (hardly deductably from the evidence), isn't racism a thought-crime?
You seem to be jumping back and forth between a hypothetical world, where the girl has been charged with a crime, and the real one, where she was merely escorted out of a stadium.
The concept of a "thought crime" is only ominous if it's referring to a literal crime, ie. something the state defines as illegal, and which it can use its coercive powers against. And if you were confining your argument to critiquing that concept, even using the hypothetical as an example of what COULD happen under hate-speech laws, I'd be on your side.
But are you really trying to argue that asking someone to leave a private space for obnoxious heckling constitutes free-speech suppression? That just doesn't hold water.
When I was in junior high, a kid wore a t-shirt to school that read "Freeze Your Ass Off In [Whatever Town The Shirt Came From]". He was told to go home and change his shirt. Are you going to argue that that was a thought-crime? No one was stopping him from wearing the shirt at home or while walking down the street.
[ 27. May 2013, 16:25: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
You really cannot grasp the difference between one instance and the wider trend it illustrates. Basically I am discussing the forest, not only one of the trees it is made of. The previous "forests" warn us where too much certainty and self-righteousness have led humans in the past.
Therefore, yes, I'd say it is grossly exaggerated to march someone out of a stadium, where dozens of insults fly back and forth all the time (the way you say "private premises" makes it sound like it was a house-warming party).
Warning her would have been entirely sufficient - albeit even then I'd question that racist insults should be treated in any other way than other generic insults.
So I perceive this one incident as an expression of a wider trend to over-react to some forms of bad behaviour which happen to be the fashionable "unforgivables" of the day.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Therefore, yes, I'd say it is grossly exaggerated to march someone out of a stadium, where dozens of insults fly back and forth all the time (the way you say "private premises" makes it sound like it was a house-warming party).
It's a legally important distinction under most formulations of free speech rights. Private premises are not the same as an open public forum and, to a large degree, expression can be limited by the owners of the premises in ways not permissible in public spaces.
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Warning her would have been entirely sufficient - albeit even then I'd question that racist insults should be treated in any other way than other generic insults.
Which can be your decision if you happen to own a football stadium. The stadium authorities in this particular case take a much stronger line against racist slurs than you personally would feel comfortable with.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Sylvander wrote:
quote:
You really cannot grasp the difference between one instance and the wider trend it illustrates.
Well, it was confusing, because you conflated the "one instance" and the "wider trend" in the first sentence of your last paragraph.
quote:
Even if the poor girl really was a hard-core racist (hardly deductably from the evidence), isn't racism a thought-crime?
The "wider trend" you're talking about seems to involve people being charged with literal crimes(hence your comparison with stake-burnings). And, like I say, that's bad. But the girl's treatment at the stadium is not illustrative of that.
It would be like if I were to start complaining about the kid at my school being sent home for having "ass" on his t-shirt, and then in the same sentence, switch to complaining about publishers being arrested under draconian obscenity laws for printing the word "ass" in their books. There is a qualitative difference between the two things.
quote:
Therefore, yes, I'd say it is grossly exaggerated to march someone out of a stadium, where dozens of insults fly back and forth all the time
When I was in school, kids made smart-alecky remarks to the teachers all the time, without being kicked out of class. But if a kid had told a teacher to "Go #%$! yourself", he would probably have been sent home. Do you see that as some sort of grossly exaggerated selective punishment?
[ 27. May 2013, 17:03: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's a legally important distinction under most formulations of free speech rights. Private premises are not the same as an open public forum and, to a large degree, expression can be limited by the owners of the premises in ways not permissible in public spaces.
Which can be your decision if you happen to own a football stadium. The stadium authorities in this particular case take a much stronger line against racist slurs than you personally would feel comfortable with.
So you want to shift the debate from the ethical to the legalistic? Then there is no debate. Nobody denied that the club's action was legal and in line with mainstream opinion. But be warned: legalistic reasoning when ethical arguments run out is a slippery slope.
The fact that the law and mainstream opinion are on your side relieves you not from the obligation to think and make ethical judgments. Some of the best people in history were the ones who disagreed with both law and public opinion of their day. And some of the worst had law and public opinion on their side.
You may not be aware of it but racism in Dixieland and deporting Jews to concentration camps in Austro-Germany were both perfectly legal and had huge public support - so always be cautious when howling with the wolves because you feel you just know you're right.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Sylvaner wrote:
quote:
So you want to shift the debate from the ethical to the legalistic? Then there is no debate. Nobody denied that the club's action was legal and in line with mainstream opinion. But be warned: legalistic reasoning when ethical arguments run out is a slippery slope.
I think I was the one who got us onto this legalistic tangent. But I only did so because you referred to the girl's racism as a "thought crime", thus implying that what happened to her was the same thing as if she'd been prosecuted for saying something on a street corner or her kitchen table.
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But if a kid had told a teacher to "Go #%$! yourself", he would probably have been sent home. Do you see that as some sort of grossly exaggerated selective punishment?
Basically I think that racist insults are no worse (or better) than other insults directed at groups. Should be immoral? Yes. Should be illegal? No. All of them.
It is in the last twenty years we gradually started thinking racism so much worse than everything else. Why? Is the one explanation I heard above all? (I.e. it is a social problem. But so is homophobia et al.).
And I observe that this development leads to witch hunts. These are never good, hence my comparisons You're wrong about the crime-stake relationship: In those days the wrong thoughts were the crime.
I illustrate my point by extending the opposite argument to the extreme, using historical parallels.
Better understandable now?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
[This is meant as a continuration of my last post]
Just to be clear, I am not arguing that the stadium's rule has to be accepted as rational just because the stadium has a right to impose it. Just that it being a stadium, and not a street corner or a kitchen table, stops it well short of being a "thought crime".
[ 27. May 2013, 17:34: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
The fact that the law and mainstream opinion are on your side relieves you not from the obligation to think and make ethical judgments. Some of the best people in history were the ones who disagreed with both law and public opinion of their day. And some of the worst had law and public opinion on their side.
Sometimes people are opposed by law and public opinion because they're groundbreaking moral thinkers. Most often, though, it's because they're jerks. If you want to go with the Galileo gambit and argue that racial slurs are the coming thing in moral behavior you'll need more than "they laughed at the Wright brothers". (They also laughed at the Marx brothers.) It should be noted that part of the reason racial slurs are so vilified is because we've already gone around this particular mulberry bush dozens (if not hundreds) of times.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
It is in the last twenty years we gradually started thinking racism so much worse than everything else. Why? Is the one explanation I heard above all? (I.e. it is a social problem. But so is homophobia et al.).
And I observe that this development leads to witch hunts. These are never good,
I'd agree that witch hunts aren't good.
And no I don't see racism as the worst thing in the world. Like most people, my sense of injustice is imperfect and partisan; an injustice done to me or mine calls forth the "that's not fair" response more loudly and strongly than injustice to those with whom I've less natural affinity.
But enough people from ethnic minorities have told enough stories about the impact of racial prejudice on them; others' feelings should be taken into account alongside one's own feelings on the relative seriousness of the different ways in which we humans fail to treat each other properly.
So if a deliberate racial putdown was intended, if the sense accurately communicated was "you black people are no better than monkeys" then on a scale of hurtfulness of insult that probably ranks pretty high. Possibly up there with telling a man from a Latin culture that his mother was a whore.
If on the other hand, there was a misunderstanding - if the sense intended was not the sense understood by the recipient then both parties to the communication share the blame and mutual apology for honest mistake is the order of the day rather than seeking to punish anyone.
The underlying issue here seems to me two different approaches to racism. One approach is to become hyper-sensitive to any possible echo of racist meaning in anything said to or about people of a minority race, and demand that everyone maximises their attention to the inter-racial context of everything, building a culture in which the most socially significant thing about any such person is their different race.
The other approach focuses on treating everyone as an individual human being rather than as a representative of their gender, race or class, and working for a society that is genuinely blind to the colour of a person's skin.
That seems to me the real divide; the first group thinks the second doesn't take racism seriously enough, while the second group sees the first as institutionalising racist ideas in the act of denying them. So both see the other as part of the problem.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Adam Goodes behaved very childishly by storming off the ground before the end of the match and turning on the tears over a single word that most people in Australia would not regard as a racial insult.
What a coincidence, most people in Australia are white. The privileged don't get to tell the unprivileged what not to be offended at.
Goodes is far from "unprivileged".
10 out of 10 for missing the point. Bravo!
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Watching the video again I was struck that no parent or other adult could be seen walking out with her other than the security guard. Was the 13 year old at the match by herself? This would not have happened in the US.
Another thought: there is no way Goode, or for that matter, the security guards could tell how old the girl was at the time of the incident. She appears much older.
I wonder how many times Goode had passed that section and heard the slurs.
Fact is Aussie Football prohibits such language.
She was wrong in with what she was yelling. Goode was in the right in calling her out. Security had no choice. She has since apologized, and Goode has accepted the apology.
So why is it some people want to keep this thread going?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
... Basically I think that racist insults are no worse (or better) than other insults directed at groups. ...
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been on the receiving end of racism? And where do insults based on insulting women fall on your scale?
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
I want to know why some people are so concerned with others having the right to verbally racially abuse other people. No one commenting here claims to go about using racial slurs themselves, but a few are very upset that they couldn't if they wanted to. It just doesn't make sense to me and I can't help but wonder if they are very insular and only have white family and friends.
I'm white, but have cousins and many friends who are not and totally support their right to go about their lives without being insulted because of their skin colour. People who think it is okay to think people are unequal due to ethnicity are also more likely to choose to employ white people (or people of ethnicities they consider hard workers, not lazy ones). This has a major impact on non-white peoples' job opportunities if a lot of people hold these views in a country where the majority of employers are also white.
When I walk down the street, go to work or travel on public transport people hold me responsible for my actions. If I make a mistake or do something wrong they don't say it's because I'm white. If I became a criminal my actions would reflect on myself, not other white people. This is not so for Aboriginal Australians and those of non-white ethnicities. They have to act as role models and anything negative they do will reflect on others of their ethnicity.
This includes footballers - a white player can skip training, drink when they shouldn't or act violently and no one will blame anyone but the individual. If an Aboriginal player does the same people start talking about Aboriginal culture and whether recruiters should be more careful when drafting Aboriginal players. Adam Goodes is an outstanding player with great leadership skills - however while this adds to the stereotype that Aboriginal people have amazing football skills, you don't see many people drawing the conclusion that Aboriginal people all have amazing leadership skills. That's due to racism.
I don't agree with calling racist people from a low socioeconomic background 'white trash' as they are people too and have not had opportunities that more wealthy people have had. Insulting people based on class or where they live in does not help the problem and is morally wrong when we are called to love others, especially outcasts.
As to Collingwood the suburb it is a highly ethnically diverse inner city suburb, and Aboriginal people live there too. The local council is very vocal in the causes of reconciliation and refugee rights. Collingwood the football team has one of the biggest supporter bases of all teams, coming from all over Melbourne and Victoria and from different ethnic backgrounds too. My Mum is even a supporter though she couldn't convince the rest of us! So is the boy next door to me who is of Indian heritage. It's a tradition to stereotype their supporters and give them stick, but not seriously. Joffa, the leader of their cheer squad may look like 'white trash' to some, but does a lot to help the homeless in Melbourne.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
original poster
original poster
original poster
I have a name, Gramps49 - or would you rather be referred to "the poster responding to the original poster"?
As for your question downthread as to whether the girl was at the game by herself, she was with her grandmother and sister, but was taken away from them by the security staff, questioned by the police with no other adult present, and reunited with them only after two hours.
This was not only completely unacceptable, but possibly illegal.
Would you tolerate your thirteen year-old daughter being treated like that?
Please spare us any protestations that any thirteen year-old daughter of yours would be perfect and therefore the contingency could not possibly arise.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What happened to the girl after being pointed out was not under the direction of Goodes
I think this comment is merely thoughtless, but were I one of those obsessive, paranoid, witch-hunter types who see racism everywhere, I could easily label you a racist for depicting Goodes as lacking the brains to imagine the damage that his actions might cause.
Racism is a genuinely serious issue, but those who play at being "anti-racister than thou" by uncovering it in all the minutiae of life (rather as self-righteous sexual morality crusaders used to discern "indelicacy", "impurity" or "lewdness" where no-one else did) only succeed in trivialising it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Racism is a genuinely serious issue, but those who play at being "anti-racister than thou" by uncovering it in all the minutiae of life (rather as self-righteous sexual morality crusaders used to discern "indelicacy", "impurity" or "lewdness" where no-one else did) only succeed in trivialising it.
Uh, yeah. Translation: "Racism is so serious, we must never call it out or object to it."
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
the boy next door to me who is of Indian heritage.
I worked in India for years, and have a number of Indian friends here in Melbourne, both Christian and Muslim, so I have been upset at the very real racism which Indians have suffered here over recent years.
At the same time, I can recall being referred to in India as a "red monkey" (a term for sunburned white Europeans), and also the responses by Indian onlookers to a couple of African kids in our school when we went out on excursions.
Nowhere is perfect.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Racism against anyone is awful.However the point I was making was that Collingwood Football Club has a diverse supporter base, not just white 'rednecks', including the boy next door.
I take public transport a lot as I don't drive and do occasionally witness people making racist comments. I always stand up for the victims and the racists are usually confused about it (often they are drunk) or even apologetic once confronted. I never reported it as I didn't think verbal racism was taken very seriously by the police. Now I have noticed one of the bus lines has posters reminding everyone that everybody deserves a safe and comfortable ride and a phone number to report any incidents. This is after a few recent high profile racist incidents caught on camera and given to the media.
People caught verbally racially abusing others in public can be prosecuted and usually fined. Do you think this is fair? Should only adults be prosecuted? If you don't think it is fair what other strategies would you suggest for protecting your Indian friends in Melbourne from racial abuse, including by teenagers? Or do you only consider racism really serious when physical attacks are also involved?
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Just out of curiosity, have you ever been on the receiving end of racism? And where do insults based on insulting women fall on your scale?
Yes, big sister. In my native land when living in quarters dominated by Turks. (In one town when my gf visited she was a victim of racist & misogynist slander on a regular basis.) And very occasionally abroad where I spent a quarter of my life.
But I take Croesos' point re the mulberry bush.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Watching the video again I was struck that no parent or other adult could be seen walking out with her other than the security guard. Was the 13 year old at the match by herself? This would not have happened in the US.
Another thought: there is no way Goode, or for that matter, the security guards could tell how old the girl was at the time of the incident. She appears much older.
The MCG management have clarified that her supervising adult was fetched shortly afterwards, when their security staff found out she was under 18. Nobody except her mother has made the claim that she was "questioned for over two hours without an adult present," not even the grandmother who was at the game with her. Why on earth the grandmother didn't follow them up the stairs is a different question, which hardly makes you wonder where the mother learned the parenting skills that led her to go to the media on Saturday.
For what it's worth, Goodes said he thought she was 14 when he looked. She may be a fairly big girl in both height and width, but her face still looks that of a child.
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Adam Goodes is an outstanding player with great leadership skills - however while this adds to the stereotype that Aboriginal people have amazing football skills, you don't see many people drawing the conclusion that Aboriginal people all have amazing leadership skills. That's due to racism.
Agree. While the Indigenous Australian community has produced some of the most extremely talented players of the last 20 years, none of the 18 AFL clubs have an Indigenous coach, and none of those players have been hired for any of the highly-paid media positions based in Melbourne.
Any suggestion that a top player like Adam Goodes or Andrew McLeod is 'privileged' because they get above-average pay needs to consider that this above-average pay for a 5-15 year career needs to be averaged out over about 50 years (from 18 to retirement age) including covering the bill for future medical costs due to the debilitating injuries they will have sustained during their football career. The majority of Indigenous players would be financially better off over their working life if they had studied to become even a teacher (a profession shat on from a great height) that would not be as well-paid per year but would last much longer.
Once Indigenous players have an equal chance of being coached well and nurtured through to the point of being noticed by a league club during their teenage years as white players do, and when they have an equal chance of their football career directly leading to a post-playing career, only then will I concede they might be reasonably considered privileged to some degree.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
the boy next door to me who is of Indian heritage.
I worked in India for years, and have a number of Indian friends here in Melbourne, both Christian and Muslim, so I have been upset at the very real racism which Indians have suffered here over recent years.
Oh dear, the old "I'm not racist, I have a couple of Indian friends" canard. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 28. May 2013, 08:50: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
the boy next door to me who is of Indian heritage.
I worked in India for years, and have a number of Indian friends here in Melbourne, both Christian and Muslim, so I have been upset at the very real racism which Indians have suffered here over recent years.
At the same time, I can recall being referred to in India as a "red monkey" (a term for sunburned white Europeans), and also the responses by Indian onlookers to a couple of African kids in our school when we went out on excursions.
Nowhere is perfect.
The disgusting racism displayed by the Indian crowds and members of the Indian cricket team towards Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds makes it clear that it's not just "whites" who display racist attitudes. At least offensive racist taunts in Australia are so isolated that we can expel offenders AND we do, whilst in India it's all in AND their officials and team mates lie so that the racists go unpunished.
News article about Indian crowds & Andrew Symonds
Somebody went on upthread about an English car ad talking about Italian apes.. the ape is a type of Italian car, I don't think the ad was racist it was just ridiculing a rival product I don't think the idea was to call Italian people Apes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What happened to the girl after being pointed out was not under the direction of Goodes
I think this comment is merely thoughtless, but were I one of those obsessive, paranoid, witch-hunter types who see racism everywhere, I could easily label you a racist for depicting Goodes as lacking the brains to imagine the damage that his actions might cause.
Racism is a genuinely serious issue, but those who play at being "anti-racister than thou" by uncovering it in all the minutiae of life (rather as self-righteous sexual morality crusaders used to discern "indelicacy", "impurity" or "lewdness" where no-one else did) only succeed in trivialising it.
Based on abuse I have encountered, I would be more likely to ascribe negative attributes towards white people than black. But the amount of pigment in one's skin is merely an adaptation to solar radiation and has naught to do with anything else.
Speaking as a victim of racism, one's reaction is often more about emotion than reason regardless.
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
A quote in the article jumps out at me:
quote:
"It's not as if she swore at him," Joanne told 3AW.
When the mother thinks swearing is worse than using a racial slur, the girl's actions are unsurprising.
I think the response was utterly proportional. Use a racial slur, get escorted out of the event, learn that actions have consequences. But no criminal charge and no ban from future events, so it shouldn't disrupt her future.
The girl's response seems appropriate as well. She said "I'm sorry for being racist", and didn't try and weasel out of it with "I'm sorry you were offended" or something.
Posted by Dan Druff (# 17703) on
:
I take a different view to most of those expressed so far.
"Big Ape" could well mean the same as "Big Lug".
As far as I am concerned a huge man who is supposed to be so macho taking pride in humiliating a thirteen year old girl in front of thousands of people is a wimp and a bully rather than a hero.
And expelling a thirteen year old girl out into the street does not seem a very clever thing to do.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Druff:
And expelling a thirteen year old girl out into the street does not seem a very clever thing to do.
She wasn't "expelled out into the street." She was escorted out of the public viewing area.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
You may not be aware of it but racism in Dixieland and deporting Jews to concentration camps in Austro-Germany were both perfectly legal and had huge public support - so always be cautious when howling with the wolves because you feel you just know you're right.
That sentence is a marvel of poor argument - four failures in one! Patronising, insulting, non sequitur, and Godwinised!
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Druff:
I take a different view to most of those expressed so far.
How would you know that when you don't seem to have read them?
quote:
"Big Ape" could well mean the same as "Big Lug".
It could, but in this case it clearly doesn't, for all sorts of reasons already explained here.
quote:
As far as I am concerned a huge man who is supposed to be so macho taking pride in humiliating a thirteen year old girl in front of thousands of people is a wimp and a bully rather than a hero.
If that was what happened you'd have a point. But it didn't and you don't.
[ 28. May 2013, 15:53: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Druff:
I take a different view to most of those expressed so far.
Welcome aboard, Dan Druff. I have some shampoo you can borrow...
quote:
"Big Ape" could well mean the same as "Big Lug".
Yes, it could, and several people have mentioned the possibility. It is, however, the case that sportsmen with an Aboriginal or African heritage are often called monkeys, apes and so on, with the implication that they are lower down the evolutionary ladder than those of European heritage who are doing the insulting. "Ape" aimed at a hairy white guy with long arms isn't racist, but "ape" aimed at an Indigenous Australian is quite likely to be.
Also note that the girl in question has apologized for being racist. Not "I didn't mean it as racist but could see how you could take it that way" but "sorry I was racist."
quote:
As far as I am concerned a huge man who is supposed to be so macho taking pride in humiliating a thirteen year old girl in front of thousands of people is a wimp and a bully rather than a hero.
Who said anything about Mr. Goodes "taking pride" in humiliating anyone. Let's say that instead of calling him an ape, the girl had thrown something at him (also happens at sporting events, also unacceptable, but generally not racist, unless it's a banana or something.) And let's suppose that Mr. Goodes did exactly the same thing - stopped, and pointed her out to the officials as the person who had thrown a missile. Would anyone be talking about him "taking pride" in "humiliating" someone who was throwing coins at players, say? I don't think so.
In fact, Mr. Goodes responded to the incident by saying:
quote:
"I just hope that people give the 13-year-old girl the same sort of support because she needs it, her family needs it, and the people around them need it. It's not a witch-hunt, I don't want people to go after this young girl. We've just got to help educate society better so it doesn't happen again."
That doesn't look like taking pride in humiliating someone to me.
quote:
And expelling a thirteen year old girl out into the street does not seem a very clever thing to do.
Indeed it wouldn't be, but it didn't happen. The girl was taken into a back room and questioned. As soon as the security people found out she was a child, they went to get her grandmother, who was accompanying her.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's a legally important distinction under most formulations of free speech rights. Private premises are not the same as an open public forum and, to a large degree, expression can be limited by the owners of the premises in ways not permissible in public spaces.
Which can be your decision if you happen to own a football stadium. The stadium authorities in this particular case take a much stronger line against racist slurs than you personally would feel comfortable with.
So you want to shift the debate from the ethical to the legalistic? Then there is no debate. Nobody denied that the club's action was legal and in line with mainstream opinion. But be warned: legalistic reasoning when ethical arguments run out is a slippery slope.
It is still an ethical argument. Do people gathered together for some common purpose have the right to expect some standard of behaviour? Does someone participating in whatever it is have a moral duty to try to follow that standard?
Say you were putting on a play. People come to see it. There is a (pretty much unwritten) expectation of how the audience will behave. It doesn't matter whether they are a paying audience or just your friends and relations, whether this is a professional theatre or a church hall, they will be playing the role of being in a theatre audience and more-or-less live up to what is expected of them. They are allowed to clap, to laugh at jokes, perhaps to stand up and cheer at the end. They are allowed to talk quietly to their neighbours as long as no=-one else can hear them. They are normally not allowed to go on to the stage, or to shout insults at the cast, or to throw things, or to take all their clothes off, or to talk loudly about the weather. The expectation will vary between times and places - the rules are different in a pantomime or a pub comedy theatre - but its always there. If an audience member breaks one of the rules they may be criticised or told to be quiet or sit down. If they go too far they will be asked to leave. There will be some leeway - one offence probably isn't enough to get you kicked out - but sooner or later there are lines you can't cross. Enforced by the audience as a whole as much as by whoever is running the theatre.
And other kinds of gatherings have other rules, other communal expectations. There are different standards of behaviour expected at restaurants or churches or parliaments or football matches.
The business about public versus private land is irrelevant from a moral point of view (except maybe in some neo-liberal anarcho-capitalist wet dreams) though it makes a difference in deciding who has the power to try to enforce the rules. What really counts is the obligations of people to other people. Its a communal, social, thing. It doesn't really matter who owns the land the building is on, what matters is how people relate to each other. Any group of people will develop its own rules pretty quickly, there doesn't have to be an external authority to impose them.
I don't know about Australian football matches because I've never been to one. But I do know about English football matches, because I go to them. Well, Millwall matches anyway. And the current situation is that, in practice, a fan can get away with calling a player a cunt to his face, but they can't get away with calling him a nigger. Both are against the rules on paper that might be enforced by the courts, but only one is against the rules in the expectation of the crowd, that is enforced by the crowd as much as by any officials. You might think that's a bad thing - maybe you want more freedom for racist insults, or less freedom for other ones - but right now its the way it is.
Its not all sweetness and light of course. When there is an external authority there is often a power struggle between them and the crowd, or between different factions in the external authority (at a football match the interests of the police do not always coincide with the interests of the football clubs and their stewards) There is often a power struggle between different factions within any group or crowd or community, and some end up being exploited or excluded. Which incidentally is exactly why it might makes sense to treat racist insults as worse then others, its to do with relative power - but that's been explained often enough on this thread already.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The cunt/nigger examples are interesting, and I think it's correct that they are treated very differently. In fact, you could probably shout to a player, 'fucking useless cunt', and he would not take umbrage. However, shout, 'fucking black cunt', and he would probably would, and I am guessing that today a lot of the crowd would also object, and the police also would.
There are probably a complex set of reasons for this distinction, some of which have been discussed, but it seems clear that many black players really object to racist language, as we saw with the Evra/Suarez incident, which involved the word 'negro' I think.
To some extent, the crowd may empathize with their own black players, and their objections to such language. 'Fucking useless cunt' is more generalized, and might be said to any player, although no doubt some feminists object to it.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The cunt/nigger examples are interesting, and I think it's correct that they are treated very differently. In fact, you could probably shout to a player, 'fucking useless cunt', and he would not take umbrage. However, shout, 'fucking black cunt', and he would probably would, and I am guessing that today a lot of the crowd would also object, and the police also would.
There are probably a complex set of reasons for this distinction, some of which have been discussed, but it seems clear that many black players really object to racist language, as we saw with the Evra/Suarez incident, which involved the word 'negro' I think.
To some extent, the crowd may empathize with their own black players, and their objections to such language. 'Fucking useless cunt' is more generalized, and might be said to any player, although no doubt some feminists object to it.
Now why do I get the feeling that you think that calling a man a vagina is something that only feminists would regard as being insulting? And that the word "feminist" is also derogatory?
Ken interestingly said that the c word is as banned as the n word, but that that ban is not enforced by the crowd. Perhaps you are not aware (but ken will be) that in some circles "Millwall" is similarly seen as derogatory. I am not going to insult ken by saying that only a Millwall supporter would not find the c word offensive, or that it is only to be expected of such a supporter, as obviously that is not true. How do you feel about "pintle"?
[ 28. May 2013, 19:20: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
My guess is that yelling cunt at a player during a women's football game would not go unremarked. It is the identification of something you are (black / female) and then denigrating it. Whereas to yell cunt at a man is to say - you are like a worthless woman. And the man knows, he is not a woman.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Penny S
I don't know why you think that I think that only feminists would object to 'cunt'. Or why you think that I find 'feminist' to be derogatory. You tell me.
I was in the feminist movement about 30 years ago, and had some fierce battles over many things.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Yes, big sister. In my native land when living in quarters dominated by Turks. (In one town when my gf visited she was a victim of racist & misogynist slander on a regular basis.) And very occasionally abroad where I spent a quarter of my life. ...
Excellent. Now imagine that those people who called you a xxxx in your quarters or when you were occasionally abroad are also at your workplace, at your school, at the shopping centre, on the bus, etc. They are your colleagues, your customers, they may even be your bosses. And about once a day, you hear the word "xxxx". Sometimes it's affectionately directed at you, such as a colleague saying, "Hey, xxxx, pass me the stapler" or your boss says, "You work really hard for a xxxx." Sometimes it's a conversation you overhear, like, "Man, those xxxxs are cheap / lousy drivers / breed like rabbits / whatever" or "A xxxx family just moved next door and you won't believe the smell from their kitchen." Maybe you'll hear someone say that all xxxx are savages who should be thrown out of the country or terrorists who should be locked up.
How long would you or your girlfriend put up with this, and would you still think it was no big deal? If your boss or a customer called you a xxxx, what would you do?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Penny S
I don't know why you think that I think that only feminists would object to 'cunt'. Or why you think that I find 'feminist' to be derogatory. You tell me.
I was in the feminist movement about 30 years ago, and had some fierce battles over many things.
'Fucking useless cunt' is more generalized, and might be said to any player, although no doubt some feminists object to it.
Where I have met this sort of construction before, that is how it has been most frequently interpreted. And not only by me. I don't think you needed that last clause to make your point. Sorry that I got you wrong. (My excuse is that elsewhere I had been reading some stuff about an MCP supporter of UKIP who, despite having some frankly weird views, had loads of supporters in the comments, who were using that sort of phraseology, and that had primed me to take offence where it wasn't intended.)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
How do you feel about "pintle"?
I think it's very useful. My rudder wouldn't stay on without one. It sounds vaguely comical.
Why - how should I feel about "pintle"? Is it Millwall slang for "penis" or something?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Why - how should I feel about "pintle"? Is it Millwall slang for "penis" or something?
It is etymologically "penis."
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is etymologically "penis."
So should I call a player for an opposing team a "fucking useless gudgeon"?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
"Big Ape" could well mean the same as "Big Lug".
It could, but in this case it clearly doesn't, for all sorts of reasons already explained here.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
It’s not actually clear at all, ken.
I am aware of the use of the term “ape” to specifically target black players, because I have read of it being done by soccer crowds in Europe, but I have never come across it being used to abuse indigenous people in Australia, and judging from the letters in the media, neither have many other Australians.
It is, however, not uncommon as a general, race-neutral, derogatory term.
The girl claimed that she did not intend it in any racist sense, and there is no reason to disbelieve her.
She has since apologised for using racist language, but any vulnerable thirteen year-old who had been through what she experienced would end up saying what they were told to say.
Posted by Lynnk (# 16132) on
:
I agree the child was silly with her remark, and racism should not be tolerated.
I also wonder if football matches for particular races could be construed as just a teeny bit racist.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Do you think this is fair? Should only adults be prosecuted?
Do you think it “fair” that a thirteen year-old was publicly targeted and humiliated in front of tens of thousands of people for a comment which almost certainly had no racist intent?
We certainly do not treat thirteen year-olds as responsible adults.
Amongst other things, they cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot sign contracts, cannot decide whether or not they go to school, and cannot have a sexual relationship with an adult.
Thirteen year-olds are perfectly capable of understanding that they have inadvertently offended someone if it is explained to them, and then apologizing for the hurt caused, but it needs to be done appropriately, and in this case it was mishandled by the adults involved, who should have known better.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Oh dear, the old "I'm not racist, I have a couple of Indian friends" canard. [/QUOTE]
Your comment is as much a knee-jerk trope as the one which you are attacking.
I have abused and been abused on the Ship, and realize that it is a forum of vigorous disagreement – “if you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen”.
However in clearly implying that I am a racist, without any evidence, and in the face of my many unambiguous condemnations of racism, you have crossed a line.
You owe me an apology.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynnk:
I also wonder if football matches for particular races could be construed as just a teeny bit racist.
It wasn't a match for a particular race; it was part of a round with a special focus on indigenous culture, on the contribution to the game made by indigenous Australians, and on the progress made in addressing racism on and off the field.
Alternatively, we could just go on sweeping racism under the carpet, and telling people who are on the end of racist abuse that they are big enough, or old enough, or well-paid enough, or male enough, or physically strong enough, or famous enough, or lucky enough, or actually-looking-enough-like-an-ape-with-their-beard-and-long-arms that they should just suck it up and get over it.
(And, Lynnk, that last paragraph is not directed specifically in response to you)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Oh dear, the old "I'm not racist, I have a couple of Indian friends" canard.
Your comment is as much a knee-jerk trope as the one which you are attacking.
I have abused and been abused on the Ship, and realize that it is a forum of vigorous disagreement – “if you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen”.
However in clearly implying that I am a racist, without any evidence, and in the face of my many unambiguous condemnations of racism, you have crossed a line.
You owe me an apology.
(cough)
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What happened to the girl after being pointed out was not under the direction of Goodes
I think this comment is merely thoughtless, but were I one of those obsessive, paranoid, witch-hunter types who see racism everywhere, I could easily label you a racist for depicting Goodes as lacking the brains to imagine the damage that his actions might cause.
(cough)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
(cough)
(cough)
Gesundheit.
I’m sorry for your respiratory disorder, but it is not an excuse for trying to pretend that an illustration of the stupidity of indiscriminate accusations of racism is the same as its opposite, ie actually accusing someone of racism.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
If anyone is interested, Eddie McGuire, the president of the Collingwood Football Club of which the thirteen year-old was a supporter, has today on radio compared Adam Goodes to King Kong.
Whether or not it was deliberately malicious (and FWIW I don’t believe it was), it was monumentally insensitive, offensive, stupid and, in the context of the last few days, unambiguously racist.
Unlike the girl, McGuire is an adult who knew, or should have known, what he was saying, and therefore deserves all he gets.
He should step down immediately.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I'm a bit mealy-keyboarded, and had been out with a friend who was photographing orchids when we saw some wild arum, aka cuckoo pint. (Both plants are named for supposed male characteristics.) I was surprised to find myself using that name for the spadix as it had not been in my mind for decades. It seemed an appropriate parallel to the c word, and a bit more unusual than the usual by-names.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is etymologically "penis."
So should I call a player for an opposing team a "fucking useless gudgeon"?
Generally, you will find a preference for 'knobhead', 'dickhead', 'scrote', and so on, if you wish to dabble amongst the male genital equipment. This may also be accompanied by various manual gestures, which I believe refer to masturbation; of course, if you wish, there are all kinds of musical accompaniment. A song which you may hear, if you tour football grounds, for example, is 'He's got the whole world in his hands, and he wanks in girls' gardens'. The cultural references here are rather obscure.
Posted by Dan Druff (# 17703) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Druff:
I take a different view to most of those expressed so far.
How would you know that when you don't seem to have read them?
My reading of earlier postings gave me the impression that Kaplan was in a minority. Am I wrong?
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The girl claimed that she did not intend it in any racist sense, and there is no reason to disbelieve her.
She has since apologised for using racist language, but any vulnerable thirteen year-old who had been through what she experienced would end up saying what they were told to say.
No she didn't. She apologised for being racist.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Kaplan--
How in the world can you say that McGuire's comment wasn't malicious, in light of the situation and of what you said in that same post???
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Kaplan Cordy, I think it was really harsh the girl was humiliated in front of all those people and I don't think her name or face should have been in the press. I do think it was ok to eject her from the ground with her family (it was nearly the end of the game anyway) and talk to her about the inappropriateness of racist language. If she had shoplifted or ridden a bike without a helmet for example, she is old enough to have consequences under the law. They would be less severe than for an adult and might only be a warning and a stern talking to for a first offence. It was a difficult situation as she was on TV and sitting directly in the front row.
As for Eddie McGuire it's like he lost his mind temporarily. I don't know what the consequences will be. He's rich, powerful and very influential in both football and the media. For those overseas he's sometimes called Eddie Everywhere because he is the President of the Collingwood Football Club, does commentary on the radio, has a morning show on the radio and previously also hosted a popular football TV show and the game show 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire'. He's definitely going to be doing a lot of apologising and everyone is probably wondering why on earth he made those comments at any time, but especially under the circumstances. Any other presenter would be at least suspended. I wonder if he won't take himself off the air for a bit, but I guess we'll see.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49
Teenagers are remarkably resilient
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
That's why so many commit suicide, is it?
Even cyber bullying can tip many over the edge.
A great many teenagers are not resilient, but vulnerable. As one whose adolescence was not a pretty sight, I think I can assert that with some authority!
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
I should add that Eddie better apoligise a lot or Collingwood might get cursed again. Collingwood Curse
This year is the twentieth anniversary of the racist incident that led to that curse after Nicky Winmar stood up to a crowd of racist Magpie fans and the President at the time said he should just act like a white person if he wanted to be left alone. There was a lot of focus before the weekend on how far things have come for the better when it comes to Indigenous players being treated as equals on the field. And then all this has happened.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
I just realised the message board OP I linked to is a bit inaccurate. The Nicky Winmar incident took place in 1993 not 1991, and I think he doesn't quote from article but from memory. However there really was a curse and Collingwood had an awful season until it was lifted. Probably just coincidence?
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
(cough)
(cough)
Gesundheit.
Your politeness is commendable. But "Gesundheit" is reserved for sneezing, while coughing elicits no response. But feel free to invent one and use it. I invented plenty of new English words at my work place and thus enlightened my colleagues.
What does "Godwinised" mean? I'm in search of at least one useful or at least logical accusation in the sentence passed by Supreme Judge further up.
Am I right in concluding from this debate that while association football is played by ruffians watched by gentlemen and rugby is played by gentlemen watched by ruffians, in Australian Football the ruffians are both on the pitch and the terraces?
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[qb] What does "Godwinised" mean? I'm in search of at least one useful or at least logical accusation in the sentence passed by Supreme Judge further up.
It refers to Godwin's Law, which states that as any internet discussion thread gets longer, the likelihood that someone will make a comparison to the Nazis increases.
[Edit: fixed code]
[ 30. May 2013, 08:38: Message edited by: Amorya ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
(cough)
(cough)
Gesundheit.
Your politeness is commendable. But "Gesundheit" is reserved for sneezing, while coughing elicits no response. But feel free to invent one and use it. I invented plenty of new English words at my work place and thus enlightened my colleagues.
I realise that Gesaundheit is usually reserved for sneezing, but I understand that the word means "health' in German, so it seemed appropriate for someone as unwell as lilBuddha sounded.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[qb] What does "Godwinised" mean? I'm in search of at least one useful or at least logical accusation in the sentence passed by Supreme Judge further up.
It refers to Godwin's Law, which states that as any internet discussion thread gets longer, the likelihood that someone will make a comparison to the Nazis increases.
[Edit: fixed code]
It usually also means that you have automatically lost the argument, as you have had recourse to such a threadbare and pathetic analogy, just as Goering did when he compared life to a chicken sandwich.
[ 30. May 2013, 09:27: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
It usually also means that you have automatically lost the argument, as you have had recourse to such a threadbare and pathetic analogy, just as Goering did when he compared life to a chicken sandwich.
Actually, you have "automatically lost the argument" only in the minds of those who think you have. Of course, you haven't lost the argument for those who realise that you may have made a good point, and the Nazi analogy may have been appropriate.
You can't actually technically 'lose' an argument on the internet, because there is no judge and jury - only the variegated opinions of a motley collection of all and sundry, who happen to show up.
'Godwin's Law' is just an observation. It's not a rule of logic. But then again, quetz, you were probably just talking with tongue in cheek, as Godwin's Law is...
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
[QUOTE]
Am I right in concluding from this debate that while association football is played by ruffians watched by gentlemen and rugby is played by gentlemen watched by ruffians, in Australian Football the ruffians are both on the pitch and the terraces?
Sorry, at least in Aust terms you're wrong. Soccer is played almost exclusively by those still at primary school (i.e., under 12) and watched by their parents; rugby (union) is played and watched by gentlemen (and their partners and parents also watch); rugby league is played and watched by a wide range, but very few women play; Aust Rules, which is what we are talking about here, is a game played in Melbourne and some other places, by those living there.
[ 30. May 2013, 10:27: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Aust Rules, which is what we are talking about here, is a game played in Melbourne and some other places, by those living there.
It is the most popular code in all states except NSW and Queensland, into which it is steadily making inroads.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Yes us AFL supporters and the players are all thugs. Actually players and supporters come from a wide variety of backgrounds. Some people in Melbourne don't like it and don't like that everyone else here is so obsessed with it though. And some people are really into soccer and like to make fun of AFL and say it's not the real football.
I've been watching the Marngrook Footy Show on TV tonight and thought the Aboriginal presenters handled the whole issue well. They weren't happy with Eddie McGuire, but did acknowledge that he has done a lot to support Indigenous footballers in the past. They wanted to remind him that words do have an impact however. Now I'm watching Barefoot Sports, an Aboriginal sports show and the presenters there also had some interesting perspectives, but think Eddie McGuire has got off lightly and the AFL should have made an example of him. It's interesting that the ex-AFL Aboriginal footballers who know or have met McGuire were a little more forgiving than the sports presenters from other sports backgrounds. They were definitely on Goodes' side though and very supportive of his stand as you would expect.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Yes us AFL supporters and the players are all thugs.
I very deliberately did not say that.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
I know nothing about Australian sport in general and had never heard of Adam Goodes, but I've been reading this thread and have a question: I have watched a couple of the YouTube videos of this incident. How on earth did Goodes identify the girl in all the yelling and general racket? Were not other fans yelling insults/comments/abuse?
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Sorry Gee D, I was responding to Sylvander who asked if all AFL supporters and players were ruffians.
As to how he identified the girl, maybe she yelled loudly and she was sitting near the ground. Also not everyone yells abuse at the football. Myself and a lot of other supporters find it annoying if you get stuck sitting next to abusive fans. Usually the umpires get abused more than anyone else. Fans tend to yell louder when there is a goal or exciting action and can actually be reasonably quiet for a crowd at times so maybe she yelled out when there was a lull. There's no doubt she said it so he Goodes must have heard her.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Actually, you have "automatically lost the argument" only in the minds of those who think you have. Of course, you haven't lost the argument for those who realise that you may have made a good point, and the Nazi analogy may have been appropriate.
The Nazi analogy is sometimes appropriate. There are two possibilities when you come across someone using a Nazi analogy:
a) they have carefully considered whether there is in fact a better analogy, and have decided that Stalinism, Italian fascism, et al are not appropriate: nothing but Nazism will do.
b) they are lazily making an analogy with the Nazis for emotive effect regardless of whether it's appropriate or not.
Now it's possible that any given analogy with the Nazis is a case of a). Anything is possible. They might be discussing a country where homosexuals are being forced to wear pink triangles, in which case the Nazi analogy would be appropriate. But the chances are overwhelmingly in favour of b).
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Am I right in concluding from this debate that while association football is played by ruffians watched by gentlemen and rugby is played by gentlemen watched by ruffians, in Australian Football the ruffians are both on the pitch and the terraces?
No. You get civil elements and nastier elements in all football codes, and there is definitely no hooligan element in AFL like there is in soccer.
In Adelaide at least, I would certainly feel much safer going to an AFL match that I would to an A-League (soccer) match. The AFL fans never need to be segregated by team and escorted away from the stadium by separate routes.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
[AFL hooligan tangent]
I like the game; as part of my general enjoyment of team games on big fields, I've got into AFL more over the past couple of years and it's a good game to watch.
So far as hooliganism is concerned, its great advantage over soccer (and you can say similar things about rugby and NFL) is that there is much more scoring, which means less tension and significance in each team's attempts to score. Scoreless soccer builds up tensions to a much greater extent; it doesn't tend to happen nearly as much in the other codes.
AFL is both very physical and, technically, looks very skillful. I'm finding that watching it is refreshing.
[/AFL hooligan tangent]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
It usually also means that you have automatically lost the argument, as you have had recourse to such a threadbare and pathetic analogy, just as Goering did when he compared life to a chicken sandwich.
Actually, you have "automatically lost the argument" only in the minds of those who think you have. Of course, you haven't lost the argument for those who realise that you may have made a good point, and the Nazi analogy may have been appropriate.
You can't actually technically 'lose' an argument on the internet, because there is no judge and jury - only the variegated opinions of a motley collection of all and sundry, who happen to show up.
'Godwin's Law' is just an observation. It's not a rule of logic. But then again, quetz, you were probably just talking with tongue in cheek, as Godwin's Law is...
I was hoping that you might get that, since I used a Godwinism in the middle of my discussion of Godwin, i.e. Goering comparing life to a chicken sandwich! I thought this was very postmodern, or Brechtian, if you prefer.
[ 30. May 2013, 14:09: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Talking about calling people apes, could we not all put together a class action against this outrage?
I mean, really....
(Or is this a case of: we can have our philosophical cake, and eat our "outrage at its logical application" cake at the same time? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
The thing about the word ape, EE, is that sometimes it means all Hominoidea, and sometimes it means all Hominoidea outside the genus Homo. Generally speaking, when you're trying to point out similarities within the superfamily, humans are in, but when you're pointing out differences, humans are out.
When "ape" is shouted at a person from an Aboriginal background, for example, it's not because someone's pointing out his opposable thumb or his lack of a tail.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And that leads in to making it possible for me to post that when I first opened this thread I thought it was going to be about some religious group or other objecting to humans being included with gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs and gibbons.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
When "ape" is shouted at a person from an Aboriginal background, for example, it's not because someone's pointing out his opposable thumb or his lack of a tail.
You're choosing to infer racist intent, sir Cnicht. As others have upthread. While others infer the opposite. Presumably based on their own experience of how language is used in their own subculture. In both instances.
Seems to me there should be some trade-off here. The closer you think racism is to being a serious crime, the more those accused have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Seems to me there should be some trade-off here. The closer you think racism is to being a serious crime, the more those accused have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
That is actually one of the problems, among numerous others, I see with hate-speech legislation. How does the law distinguish between just saying that so-and-so hates some racial group, and accusing so-and-so of commiting a crime?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S
And that leads in to making it possible for me to post that when I first opened this thread I thought it was going to be about some religious group or other objecting to humans being included with gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs and gibbons.
Happy to be of service. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Funny how a 13 year old girl has been virtually treated like a criminal for reminding us of the theory that the scientific establishment has been wearisomely promoting for years, namely, that we are all just animals. And furthermore, the idea that some races are more evolved than others is perfectly consistent with that theory.
But, hey, when our pet theory comes into conflict with something called 'reality' (as well explained by this book), let's not have any qualms about stealing ideas (such as the inherent equality of dignity of all people) from those nasty creationists!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Terrible, innit?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Funny how a 13 year old girl has been virtually treated like a criminal for reminding us of the theory that the scientific establishment has been wearisomely promoting for years, namely, that we are all just animals. And furthermore, the idea that some races are more evolved than others is perfectly consistent with that theory.
But, hey, when our pet theory comes into conflict with something called 'reality' (as well explained by this book), let's not have any qualms about stealing ideas (such as the inherent equality of dignity of all people) from those nasty creationists!
And the impressive thing was how quickly it happened, too. It only took about a year from the time Charles Darwin invented racism in November 1859 that a group of Americans tried to form an explicitly white supremacist nation. Now some may argue that America's "Peculiar Institution" was racist even before 1859, but as EE has helpfully pointed out that's clearly impossible.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Terrible, innit?
Truly.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But, hey, when our pet theory comes into conflict with something called 'reality'
Unintended irony or an admission?
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
the theory that the scientific establishment has been wearisomely promoting for years, namely, that we are all just animals. And furthermore, the idea that some races are more evolved than others is perfectly consistent with that theory.
I think the "just" here is misplaced.
You had a really good point just now, and you've gone and spoiled it with some sloppy language that drags in a very dead and smelly horse.
Your good point is that saying that all humans as a species have many characteristics of apes is today considered normal and factual and non-offensive (although in Victorian days this might not have been so).
You could have added that calling an individual an ape may be apt (if they have long arms and walk in a way that brings to mind non-human primates) or inapt depending on the characteristics of that individual. It's generally uncomplimentary in a harmless way.
What is offensive is the view that some racial groups are less than fully human,
So if A calls B an ape, it's only "hate speech" if the meaning is "you are ape-like because of your membership of a particular (racial or other) group" rather than "you are an ape-like individual" or "you are a member of an ape-like species".
The error of racism is treating people as "just" examples of a particular race - completely subordinating their individuality and humanity to their race.
The error of anti-racism seems to be much the same.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You're choosing to infer racist intent, sir Cnicht. As others have upthread. While others infer the opposite. Presumably based on their own experience of how language is used in their own subculture. In both instances.
Well, OK, but yelling 'ape' at someone is never going to mean "look at all those ape-like characteristics that he and I share with chimps and gorillas," and is always going to mean "he is much more like a (non-human) ape than me or people like me.
As to whether that's because our heckler is a racist who thinks brown people are marginally smarter than monkeys, or whether there's not a racist bone in his (her) body, but (s)he thinks that the target of his abuse has long hairy arms and carries himself in a manner that is more chimp-like than most people, we can't tell for certain without more knowledge.
It's pretty clear what Mr. Goodes thought it was, though.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I can't believe that this has gone on for this many pages. The girl doesn't dispute what happened, or the racist intent of what she said. Surely we can all agree that deliberatly insulting people is a Bad Thing and should have soome repercussions? Getting ejected from the game seems quite reasonable on the face of it.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Speaking of non-human primates, Eddy McGuire could be facing accusations of speciesism (not to mention sexism) on top of racism, if he is not careful.
Shortly before the current furore, he told the story, presumably apocryphal, of the (white)AFL footballer who has described as looking like Tarzan, playing like Jane and smelling like Cheetah.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I can't believe that this has gone on for this many pages. The girl doesn't dispute what happened, or the racist intent of what she said. Surely we can all agree that deliberatly insulting people is a Bad Thing and should have soome repercussions? Getting ejected from the game seems quite reasonable on the face of it.
It is in fact far from clear whether the girl used the term “ape”with “racist intent”, and on balance it would seem that she did not.
Nor is it clear whether insulting other people, something which goes on all the time at sporting events, political meetings, in the media, and elsewhere, should always be sanctioned, especially legally.
This whole incident bristles with big, difficult issues, including the limits of free speech; the age of understanding and responsibility; and the question of whether abuse, racial or otherwise, is to be defined in terms of the intention of the abuser (including the problem of how intention can be demonstrated) or the claimed perceptions of the alleged abusee.
Your simplistic response simply trivializes these issues.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is in fact far from clear whether the girl used the term “ape”with “racist intent”, and on balance it would seem that she did not.
Nor is it clear whether insulting other people, something which goes on all the time at sporting events, political meetings, in the media, and elsewhere, should always be sanctioned, especially legally.
This whole incident bristles with big, difficult issues, including the limits of free speech; the age of understanding and responsibility; and the question of whether abuse, racial or otherwise, is to be defined in terms of the intention of the abuser (including the problem of how intention can be demonstrated) or the claimed perceptions of the alleged abusee.
Your simplistic response simply trivializes these issues. [/QB]
Kaplan Corday thinks yelling terms commonly used as Racist abuse and recognized as such by a large number of people is much too complicated to address and so should be ignored.
Kaplan Corday thinks that thirteen year old girls attending football matches should be allowed to yell words commonly recognized as racist because she may have had some post modern ironical intent or may have been too naïve to understand what she was saying.
Kaplan Corday thinks that someone who has endured racist treatment for most of his life should just ignore abuse because he's well paid and he's badly over-reacting by pointing out the abuse to the Stadium Security.
Kaplan Corday thinks it's all so complicated and a restriction of freedom of speech for a officials running a public event to have regulations on what speech and behavior is allowed in the venue. Presumably not allowing people to walk onto the field and give a half hour speech is a brutal repression of their rights.
It's all so simple. Racist behavior is just too difficult to recognize or prevent.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Presumably based on their own experience of how language is used in their own subculture. In both instances.
Colour is not culture, sub or dominant. Monkey, ape, gorilla, chimp, baboon are used in a derogatory nature by white people of various cultural standing against black and brown people of various cultural standing.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is in fact far from clear whether the girl used the term “ape”with “racist intent”, and on balance it would seem that she did not.
No, she said ape and did not add further comment during the game, so this is neutral as far as discerning intent. She later apologised to Goodes for using racist language. So, this is neutral as well since it hinges on believing or disbelieving her sincerity.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
EtymologicalEvangelical quote:
the theory that the scientific establishment has been wearisomely promoting for years, namely, that we are all just animals. And furthermore, the idea that some races are more evolved than others is perfectly consistent with that theory.
In my opinion the second sentence is dangerously incorrect because it confuses “species” with “race”. Evolutionary biologists, as far as I am aware, are concerned with the origin of “species”, amongst which all human beings are classified as “homo sapiens”. “Race” is a pseudo-scientific term and seems to rest principally on an imprecise division of humanity into groups determined by skin pigmentation. Attempts to give “race” a scientific respectability have proved to be nonsense. If “race” is used scientifically it can be no more than a synonym for “species”. If “race” is used as a synonym for an “ethnic group” then it ceases to be a scientific category. Social Darwinism, designed to give a respectable basis to “racism” is a social and political ideology that is not grounded in science, so the claim above that “that some races are more evolved than others is perfectly consistent with [Darwin’s] theory” is false. As to the matter under discussion I conclude that not all Australian apes are black.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Kwesi,
You are, of course, correct. But, ISTM, EE's statement was more about saying "Science is stooopid" than making a statement about race.
[ 31. May 2013, 07:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Kaplan--
I don't know what I'm getting into here, but why is this so personal for you?
That's the only reason I can think of that you continue to defend the girl so vociferously. Many of us have said that maybe the stadium staff and the authorities could've handled the situation better. No one's called for her to be clapped in irons. The general sense I get from most posters is that she did something stupid and wrong and hurtful, and they hope she'll learn from it and go on to treat people better..
But the things you keep posting, and the way you keep posting, make it sound like she's the only thing that really matters, and everything else be damned
It's really confusing. Is it possible for you to enlighten us, please? What are we missing???
Thanks. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, it is sure is making a mountain out of a molehill. Good grief, why go on about it?
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
She called him an ape, was overheard and ejected by police.
It was assumed it referred to his colour.
She has apologised. He's accepted the apology.
Enough.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Before Darwin provided a "scientific" basis for derogating non-white groups, didn't the sort of people who would do that use the story of Ham as a biblical excuse for that sort of behaviour?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Palimpsest thinks that a term which is understood as racist in one context should always be interpreted as racist (and intentionally so) in another where it is not.
Palimpsest thinks that thirteen year-olds always say and do things with a full understanding of what they involve, are therefore as culpable as adults doing or saying the same things, and should therefore never be cut any slack.
Palimpsest thinks that an intelligent adult in a position of relative power and influence should always exploit that advantage to humiliate children who have upset him.
Palimpsest thinks that in the volatile atmosphere of a sporting contest attended by tens of thousands of people, a large proportion of them hurling abuse (and not just racial) which any decent person would find abhorrent, it is a simple matter to define the gradations of acceptability and pinpoint one scapegoat.
I don’t believe that you think any of the above, and I don’t believe you really think that I believe what you claim I do, either.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But why go on and on about it?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Colour is not culture, sub or dominant. Monkey, ape, gorilla, chimp, baboon are used in a derogatory nature by white people of various cultural standing against black and brown people of various cultural standing.
I think there is a cultural element. They're words that can have racist connotation, but don't necessarily always do.
Monkey and chimp, for example, wouldn't have racist overtones for me. They'd go with "cheeky", as in "cheeky monkey" - someone who's mischievous or whatever.
Baboon would be an idiot or a fool. A "blundering baboon". Probably due to the similarity of the word "buffoon"
And I can quite conceive of ape or gorilla referring to someone who is large-built and thuggish - a bouncer type.
I'm aware that there are also racist uses, and, for example, monkey chants at a football match would stand out for me. But in my limited life experience, I think it's true to say that I've never heard any of the above words used as a racial slur. But I have heard them in those other contexts.
However, in this specific case, and the cultural context it was in, it was a racial slur - the girl's admitted so. So, L'Organist sums it all up pretty well:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
She called him an ape, was overheard and ejected by police.
It was assumed it referred to his colour.
She has apologised. He's accepted the apology.
Enough.
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Sorry Gee D, I was responding to Sylvander who asked if all AFL supporters and players were ruffians.
Actually it was a stab at humour, quoting a common phrase from the UK. Never mind.
Thanks for enlightening me on "Godwinised". I never cease to learn here, and so even ken got a one-in-four "valid" rating in his post :-)
"Nazi" comparisons have various dimensions. People usually equate Nazism with the Holocaust. But before the holocaust started (1941) the Nazis ran Germany for 8 years and only gradually increased the pressure. So a Nazi-comparison is not necessarily a liking something to genocide, it may be referring to much more ordinary forms of totalitarianism e.g.:
Well into the late 1930s the legal situation of Jews was not considerably worse than that of negroes in the Southern US. Jesse Jackson said something to this effect in an interview after his wins at the Berlin 1936 Olympics. Nazi anti-semitism was more conspicuous inter alia because it came suddenly and it looked worse because it affected Jews in middle class and high positions - positions which southern US negroes never even got into, so they did not get kicked in the dust so much as they were born there.
Another dimension was the Nazis' attempt to change and control language (French "Adieu" was not to be used any more, "Heil Hitler" instead of "Guten Tag". Getting the latter wrong could get you in serious trouble). Language was used to distinguish friend and foe. Whoever did not go with the latest politically correct term was suspect. That is one parallel which I often use to show in what unsavoury mindset some people's thinking in today's debates is rooted. Terms like "negro" (Neger) and "gipsy" (Zigeuner) were perfectly harmless. I hear they now censor Martin Luther King's speeches on US telly, bleeping out the "negro". Then someone declares them inappropriate and continued use equates to racism. Control over language is one major feature of totalitarianism.
Would people agree if the rule in the stadium said: Anybody shouting grave insults will be evicted? So that "cunt", "fag", "ape" etc. are all treated the same? Thus one would not single out racism unreasonably as the worst of the worst.
It might make life a bit difficult to legislate all unpleasant things away, of course. I remember once calling a football referee "you mole" for he was as blind as a dead chicken in a black bag. I am glad that the 50,000 others shouting "bribed motherfucker" drowned me out and that he was neither hairy, nor handicapped nor greyish-black in hue.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Except that I think racism is worse than common abuse. If one footballer calls another a dozy twat, it's no big deal; if he calls him a dozy black twat, that seems in a different category to me. Racism has so many cultural and historical associations, that it is (rightly, in my view) considered to be heinous.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kaplan--
I don't know what I'm getting into here, but why is this so personal for you?
That's the only reason I can think of that you continue to defend the girl so vociferously. Many of us have said that maybe the stadium staff and the authorities could've handled the situation better. No one's called for her to be clapped in irons. The general sense I get from most posters is that she did something stupid and wrong and hurtful, and they hope she'll learn from it and go on to treat people better..
But the things you keep posting, and the way you keep posting, make it sound like she's the only thing that really matters, and everything else be damned
It's really confusing. Is it possible for you to enlighten us, please? What are we missing???
Thanks.
I think that your problems are those of fear and historical insularity.
Amongst Western middle-class people today, racism is regarded in morally exceptionalist terms as uniquely evil, and this goes along with a dread that unless one condemns it absolutely and unequivocally, even when there are questions about whether it has actually taken place, and if so, whether there are moderating, complicating and mitigating factors, then one will be labeled as a racist oneself.
Such a situation is not unprecedented.
In other times and places it has been patriotism, or anti-communism, or sexual morality, or religious orthodoxy, ie “You ask whether such and such a thing is really disloyal / communist / obscene / heretical? You suggest qualifications and investigation and questions and discussion? Aha! Then obviously you are a traitor / Red / libertine / Protestant yourself!”
Racism is always wrong, but it is neither wrong to recognize degrees of seriousness, nor to ask whether there are issues of interpretation and perception involved, however threatening that might feel.
Posted by Reuben (# 11361) on
:
All things considered I think her transgression pales into insignificance compared to Eddie McGuire's follow up blunder.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Kaplan Corday thinks yelling terms commonly used as Racist abuse and recognized as such by a large number of people is much too complicated to address and so should be ignored.
Kaplan Corday thinks that thirteen year old girls attending football matches should be allowed to yell words commonly recognized as racist because she may have had some post modern ironical intent or may have been too naïve to understand what she was saying.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kaplan--
I don't know what I'm getting into here, but why is this so personal for you?
That's the only reason I can think of that you continue to defend the girl so vociferously. Many of us have said that maybe the stadium staff and the authorities could've handled the situation better. No one's called for her to be clapped in irons. The general sense I get from most posters is that she did something stupid and wrong and hurtful, and they hope she'll learn from it and go on to treat people better..
But the things you keep posting, and the way you keep posting, make it sound like she's the only thing that really matters, and everything else be damned
It's really confusing. Is it possible for you to enlighten us, please? What are we missing???
I can't answer for Kaplan specifically, but this kind of smokescreen is a huge part of white privilege. Any time a white person is publicly caught making some racist comment they can usually count on a large number of people grasping at any kind of straw ("maybe she was just making an anthropological comment!") other than the simple, straightforward idea that a racist comment was racist.
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Well into the late 1930s the legal situation of Jews was not considerably worse than that of negroes in the Southern US. Jesse Jackson said something to this effect in an interview after his wins at the Berlin 1936 Olympics.
I'm pretty sure you mean Jesse Owens. Jesse Jackson wasn't born until 1941 and, as far as I know, has never competed in the Olympics, much less won four gold medals.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Croesos
Very good analysis of privilege. It operates very widely, as with homophobia - there are many excuses for it of course, although probably they are dwindling today.
I suppose it's WASP privilege, or maybe, WASSP, where the extra S denotes straight.
I'm not really a bigot, I'm just responding to my cultural/anthropological/social context, where racism/homophobia/misogyny are deeply embedded, and after all, I am struggling against it.
Power and privilege and hegemony love to dress themselves up in fine clothes, but inadvertently reveal their trashy backside.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Kaplan Corday, don't assume you the motives of myself and others here who do not share your views. I do not stand up against racism in order to not be judged as racist myself - I do it because I care about my non-white family members, friends and everyone else who is hurt and disadvantaged by racism. I have never aspired to be 'cool' so am not just taking this point of view because it's the in thing.
Of course there are less and more serious forms of racism. That doesn't mean people should have to put up with the less serious forms because white people want the freedom to say whatever they feel like, regardless of other peoples' feelings.
You say you believe racism is really wrong so I still don't understand why you are upset when people are held accountable for verbal racism. If your Indian friends in Melbourne were verbally abused by a thirteen year old on the train should they just grin and bear it or ignore it? I once confronted a group of teens for calling a man of Indian origin on the train a curry muncher and harassing him. I got sworn at and spat on for my trouble by a couple of them and told they were just joking. One girl even 'stabbed' me in the arm with a lego man holding a sword a few times and called me a bitch. (I'm glad to say the rest of the group apologised for their behaviour and wiped the spit off). A staff member at the train station also spoke to them and told one of the boys that men don't treat women that way. His excuse? He wasn't a man, just a boy, so he had every right to spit on me and swear at me for calling him out on his racism. I never went to the police because this was before they had transit police at stations and the teens were obviously from disadvantaged backgrounds themselves and I didn't see the point in getting them in further trouble.
And Sylvander I kind of got you were joking, I just didn't find it funny, especially on a thread about a serious topic so I was a little sarcastic in my response.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Sylvander, perhaps you missed my post. Care to respond? I'm particularly interested in how you deal with racist slurs in your workplace.
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Racism is always wrong, but it is neither wrong to recognize degrees of seriousness, nor to ask whether there are issues of interpretation and perception involved, however threatening that might feel.
Surely the degree of seriousness was recognised. Serious racism would be something like refusing to serve someone in a shop, and you'd be slapped with a huge fine. Really serious racism would be stirring up hatred, or committing racially motivated hate crimes. You'd be tried as a criminal.
Since this wasn't serious racism, the police weren't even involved. Sounds proportional to me.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
... Another dimension was the Nazis' attempt to change and control language (French "Adieu" was not to be used any more, "Heil Hitler" instead of "Guten Tag". Getting the latter wrong could get you in serious trouble). Language was used to distinguish friend and foe. Whoever did not go with the latest politically correct term was suspect. ...
And if white people were being herded into labour and concentration camps in vast numbers for saying nasty words for brown people, you might have a point. A really bizarre, weird, twisted point that equates asking for courtesy and respect with violent racism. A point that can only be seen from the exalted peak of white privilege.
ETA: And this
quote:
... Terms like "negro" (Neger) and "gipsy" (Zigeuner) were perfectly harmless. I hear they now censor Martin Luther King's speeches on US telly, bleeping out the "negro". ...
It's a fair bet that the people to whom those terms were directed might not have found them harmless. And as for bleeping "negro", the continuing existence of the NAACP and Quentin Tarantino movies in the USA shows it's more complicated than that.
[ 31. May 2013, 18:13: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Palimpsest thinks that a term which is understood as racist in one context should always be interpreted as racist (and intentionally so) in another where it is not.
Palimpsest thinks that thirteen year-olds always say and do things with a full understanding of what they involve, are therefore as culpable as adults doing or saying the same things, and should therefore never be cut any slack.
Palimpsest thinks that an intelligent adult in a position of relative power and influence should always exploit that advantage to humiliate children who have upset him.
Palimpsest thinks that in the volatile atmosphere of a sporting contest attended by tens of thousands of people, a large proportion of them hurling abuse (and not just racial) which any decent person would find abhorrent, it is a simple matter to define the gradations of acceptability and pinpoint one scapegoat.
I don’t believe that you think any of the above, and I don’t believe you really think that I believe what you claim I do, either.
Yes, I didn't realize that shouting "ape" at a player who is in a group that has been treated badly because of racial discrimination was really the little girl doing her biology homework at the football stadium, even though she later described the term as racist.
I doubt you really believe that the usage was non racist, it's just part of your flurry of excuses for bad behavior. Excuses which don't hold up if you look at them hard.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Yes, I didn't realize that shouting "ape" at a player who is in a group that has been treated badly because of racial discrimination was really the little girl doing her biology homework at the football stadium, even though she later described the term as racist.
What you don't appear to realise, as I explained upthread, is that the term "ape" has never had a racist application in Australia, as it has had in Europe, though as a result of this incident, it will from now on.
There is therefore no reason to believe that the girl was being deliberately racist.
She described it afterward as racist, because that was what she had just been told.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
the police weren't even involved
Actually they were at one point, but Goodes, to his credit, did not want charges pressed,
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
If 'ape" has never had a racist application in Australia, then why did the player consider it a racist slur?
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The term "ape" has never had a racist application in Australia, as it has had in Europe, though as a result of this incident, it will from now on.
Wrong. Did you listen to what Adam Goodes said in the presser the following morning? He said it wasn't the first time he had been called that. I think it was in that statement that he referred back to abuse at school.
And blaming the victim? Claiming that someone who called out an instance of racist abuse is to be blamed for that particular insult gaining wider usage? That's just f***ing rude.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
You say you believe racism is really wrong so I still don't understand why you are upset when people are held accountable for verbal racism.
Congratulations on your actions on the train.
I hope that I would have the courage to do the same in similar circumstances.
Your comparison of the MCG incident to a thirteen year-old’s racially abusing passengers on a train has two difficulties.
First, the abuse on the train is unambiguously racist, and secondly, remonstration on the part of the Indians, indigenous Australians or anyone else being abused, explaining why they found the comments hurtful and unacceptable, would be entirely appropriate because everyone in the carriage would have heard the abuse, and the incident and its perpetrator would not finish up in the national media.
Your claim that I am "upset when people are held accountable for verbal racism" is completely at variance with what I have written.
I made it quite clear, for example, that McGuire was culpable for his comment, first because as a result of the MCG incident any reference to non-human primates was now racist, and secondly because he is a shrewd and knowledgeable adult who operates in the public sphere and should have known better.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The term "ape" has never had a racist application in Australia, as it has had in Europe, though as a result of this incident, it will from now on.
Wrong. Did you listen to what Adam Goodes said in the presser the following morning? He said it wasn't the first time he had been called that. I think it was in that statement that he referred back to abuse at school.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I made it quite clear, for example, that McGuire was culpable for his comment, first because as a result of the MCG incident any reference to non-human primates was now racist, and secondly because he is a shrewd and knowledgeable adult who operates in the public sphere and should have known better.
I'm having trouble reading the highlighted bit in your second comment as anything other than a claim that racism is just something invented by non-whites to make white people feel bad.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
The kids who called the Indian man a 'curry muncher' also claimed it was not racist, but a friendly term. It's like they think it was appropriate to call someone that if they didn't know his name. Just because the person using a term doesn't realise how offensive it is, doesn't mean it's not racist.
Also many white people in the past considered Aboriginal people to be the most primitive in the world and the least evolved or human 'races'. This was partly based on their use of stone and wood tools, rather than metal, and that they lived a hunter and gatherer lifestyle instead of farming. These past racists didn't take into account that most native Australian flora and fauna are not suitable for farming or that Aboriginal peoples had lived and survived for thousands of years living their way. Many white people assumed Aboriginal people were too primitive to adapt to 'modern' ways of life and would die off or have to be put on missions and be looked after by white people. So maybe they weren't directly called monkeys, but they were considered less evolved and even less human.
I'm relieved to realise that you do consider verbal racism to be real racism, and something that should be confronted. I was just confused about your views because you were so upset about the girl at the MCG being punished and thought you meant all verbal racism is something that should just be let go and ignored. I still stand by my view that the MCG has a right to eject racially abusive fans though.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... everyone in the carriage would have heard the abuse, and the incident and its perpetrator would not finish up in the national media. ...
So racism can only be challenged when everyone hears it, but no one ever finds out about it? Those are your criteria?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm having trouble reading the highlighted bit in your second comment as anything other than a claim that racism is just something invented by non-whites to make white people feel bad.
Sounds as if you are “reading into” rather than reading.
Not only have I never heard the word “ape” used in a racist sense, but I have never come across such a usage being condemned on the ABC or in the Fairfax press, both of which I listen to and read regularly, and both of which are extremely thorough and alert in exposing racism.
If Goodes was ever called an “ape” previously, there is no reason to suppose it had reference to his Aboriginality.
If the insult did unambiguously refer to his Aboriginality (eg “black ape”), it might have been simply a reference to his appearance, and did not necessarily carry all the baggage of pseudo-Darwinian theories of differing evolutionary rates of different “races”.
If, as I am quite willing to believe, Goodes genuinely thought that her comment carried an agenda of Aborigines’ subhumanity and he was therefore justifiably upset, then I return to my original points:
1. I think he was mistaken, and that the girl did not use the term in that sense.
2. Even if he thought she had, his response was not appropriate and he could and should have handled it differently.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What you don't appear to realise, as I explained upthread, is that the term "ape" has never had a racist application in Australia, as it has had in Europe, though as a result of this incident, it will from now on.
There is therefore no reason to believe that the girl was being deliberately racist.
She described it afterward as racist, because that was what she had just been told.
It is surprising, then, that the crowd seemed to express disapproval by booing at her. If the racist application were as unknown as you claim, puzzled glances might have been the response.
But I see that you have already made up your mind about your interpretation of this event, and that you have come here to persuade rather than discuss.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I find the proposition that there was anything wrong with Goodes' actions ludicrous. I especially find it ludicrous to ascribe to him an intent of subjecting the girl to a lengthy public humiliation. He doesn't control the press, he certainly doesn't control where Channel 7 points it's cameras. They should damn well be pointing them at the field of play, but of course anything off field they find amusing or titillating becomes the news of the moment instead.
Blaming Goodes for the role of other people, including yourself Kaplan, in extending this into some epic event is thoroughly misplaced.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Also, the notion that ape is not used in Australia as a racist word is, in my opinion, bullshit. What little bubble are you living in?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
an intent of subjecting the girl to a lengthy public humiliation.
Goodes no doubt did not want her subjected to a public humiliation, but by doing what he did, instead of going over to her and saying something to her one to one, he almost certainly guaranteed that it happened.
Goodes acted in the heat of the moment when he was understandably upset.
That cannot be said for all those people who have since reacted toward her with grim, rigid, ideological vindictiveness.
Under Stalin’s legal code, alleged offenders were treated as adults from the age of twelve.
That mentality now doesn’t appear as bizarre and unbelievable as it used to.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
an intent of subjecting the girl to a lengthy public humiliation.
Goodes no doubt did not want her subjected to a public humiliation, but by doing what he did, instead of going over to her and saying something to her one to one, he almost certainly guaranteed that it happened.
Goodes acted in the heat of the moment when he was understandably upset.
That cannot be said for all those people who have since reacted toward her with grim, rigid, ideological vindictiveness.
Under Stalin’s legal code, alleged offenders were treated as adults from the age of twelve.
That mentality now doesn’t appear as bizarre and unbelievable as it used to.
Why didn't you say she was shipped to a Gulag for 20 years as punishment? That didn't make the papers that I read. I guess you've fallen a long way down a slippery slope.
As for your theory that he should have gone over and talked to her about her abusive term. If he had done that, you would have heaped even more abuse on him for terrifying a poor little girl.
I'm also sure that his team management far prefers he hand such problem over to security
rather than dispute with the audience. He did exactly the right thing.
The great puzzle is how he knew it was a racist slur since it's never ever been used that way in Australia.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for your theory that he should have gone over and talked to her about her abusive term. If he had done that, you would have heaped even more abuse on him for terrifying a poor little girl.
I'm also sure that his team management far prefers he hand such problem over to security
rather than dispute with the audience. He did exactly the right thing.
Going over to her and aying, "I find that comment offensive and hurtful and don't think you should use it" is worse than having her marched out by security in front of national media?
Really?
quote:
The great puzzle is how he knew it was a racist slur since it's never ever been used that way in Australia.
No puzzle..
Goodes, like me and others, would be aware that in Europe it is a common slur against black players, and can include the brandishing of bananas and mass chanting of monkey sounds accompanied by monkey gestures.
I have never seen or heard of anything remotely like that occurring that at an Australian football match (for which i am grateful, and I trust I never will).
It is obvious from letters to the papers regarding this incident that many other Australians, including the girl, were not aware of the situation in Europe.
[ 01. June 2013, 11:07: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It is obvious from letters to the papers regarding this incident that many other Australians, including the girl, were not aware of the situation in Europe.
Funny that white people are the least aware.
I worked on a project with a young, white man who told me and an older black woman that racism was a thing of the past. That it did not exist. He seemed to sincerely believe this. We were nonplussed for a moment. Despite our enumerating past and current abuses, he did not recant this belief.
Oh, and as pointed out repeatedly above, it is the situation in Australia as well and the crowd damn well recognised it.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Not only have I never heard the word “ape” used in a racist sense, but I have never come across such a usage being condemned on the ABC or in the Fairfax press, both of which I listen to and read regularly, and both of which are extremely thorough and alert in exposing racism. ...
Well, the rest of us have. Lots of times. Read the thread, FFS. Ignorance is not the killer debating point you seem to think it is.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, the notion that ape is not used in Australia as a racist word is, in my opinion, bullshit. What little bubble are you living in?
Interesting how this didn't get addressed.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
For a player to go over to the stands to reprimand someone shouting abuse would guarantee cameras to follow. It would also more likely escalate the situation and still require security to intervene. Goodes did the right thing by having security do its job, crowd control, while he did his, play.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
In my Australian bubble 'ape' is rarely used, and then only as a friendly confrontation on a minor stupidity. Of course, this does not preclude it being used in a racist manner, but I think it is notable because it is unusual.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... Not only have I never heard the word “ape” used in a racist sense, but I have never come across such a usage being condemned on the ABC or in the Fairfax press, both of which I listen to and read regularly, and both of which are extremely thorough and alert in exposing racism. ...
Media outlets all around the country certainly condemned it when hundreds of supporters of the Indian cricket team were making primate noises at stadiums around Australia every time Andrew Symonds came on to bat or bowl, and also when there were thousands doing it at their home games.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Well, "Christians are monkeys" were sprayed on the walls of Dormition Abbey, the traditional site of Mary's death bed in Jerusalem today:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4386603,00.html
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Well, "Christians are monkeys" were sprayed on the walls of Dormition Abbey, the traditional site of Mary's death bed in Jerusalem today:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4386603,00.html
Wow, there's an Olympic-grade non sequitur.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
If 'ape" has never had a racist application in Australia, then why did the player consider it a racist slur?
Game, set, and match I think!
(Although that weird and rather nasty post about Jews in Germany being better off than blacks in America before 1941 might count as the other side exploding their own argument. Kristallnacht?)
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And that leads in to making it possible for me to post that when I first opened this thread I thought it was going to be about some religious group or other objecting to humans being included with gorillas, chimps, bonobos, orangs and gibbons.
Of course. And as a matter of fact all humans are apes. So what the girl said was literally true. (Though she might not have known that) Which doesn't mean it wasn't meant as a racist insult.
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Before Darwin provided a "scientific" basis for derogating non-white groups, didn't the sort of people who would do that use the story of Ham as a biblical excuse for that sort of behaviour?
I feel honour-bound to point out that Darwin in fact provided a scientific basis for recognising that all humans are the same species (as the Christian Church has always taught but some 19th and early 20 century scientists disputed). And that by the standards of the time he was personally anti-racist - he opposed slavery, he was a member of a committee that campaigned for governor Eyre of Jamaica to be tried for murder after the brutal suppression of a supposed rebellion, he argued against some doctors and scientists who opposed mixed-race marriages on spurious medical grounds.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my Australian bubble 'ape' is rarely used, and then only as a friendly confrontation on a minor stupidity. Of course, this does not preclude it being used in a racist manner, but I think it is notable because it is unusual.
Exactly.
It is impossible to prove a negative, and someone, somewhere at some time, in a population of twenty-two million could use the term in a racist sense, but it is unknown to most Australians - until now.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my Australian bubble 'ape' is rarely used, and then only as a friendly confrontation on a minor stupidity. Of course, this does not preclude it being used in a racist manner, but I think it is notable because it is unusual.
Exactly.
It is impossible to prove a negative, and someone, somewhere at some time, in a population of twenty-two million could use the term in a racist sense, but it is unknown to most Australians - until now.
To quote the original post ( by someone called Kaplan Corday)
quote:
For a start, there is no justification these days for any adult to engage in deliberate racial vilification by referring to a black person using any sort of simian terminology, and we have all been sickened by footage of chanting soccer crowds (or sections thereof) doing so to black players in Europe.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, the notion that ape is not used in Australia as a racist word is, in my opinion, bullshit. What little bubble are you living in?
Same one as me, apparently. I've never encountered it as a racial slur in real life - only on the internet, talking to non-Aussies.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my Australian bubble 'ape' is rarely used, and then only as a friendly confrontation on a minor stupidity. Of course, this does not preclude it being used in a racist manner, but I think it is notable because it is unusual.
Exactly.
It is impossible to prove a negative, and someone, somewhere at some time, in a population of twenty-two million could use the term in a racist sense, but it is unknown to most Australians - until now.
To quote the original post ( by someone called Kaplan Corday)
quote:
For a start, there is no justification these days for any adult to engage in deliberate racial vilification by referring to a black person using any sort of simian terminology, and we have all been sickened by footage of chanting soccer crowds (or sections thereof) doing so to black players in Europe.
The "all" referred to Shippies following the thread, not to all Australians, as I thought would have been obvious from the context.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
the crowd damn well recognised it.
A crowd of tens of thousands at a place the size of the MCG could not possibly have known at the time why she was being removed.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
For a player to go over to the stands to reprimand someone shouting abuse would guarantee cameras to follow. It would also more likely escalate the situation and still require security to intervene. Goodes did the right thing by having security do its job, crowd control, while he did his, play.
Exactly. To portray her being marched out as being bad because she was marched out in front of the national media, but to suggest going over and talking to her WOULDN'T be in front of the national media, is fantasy.
Goodes is one of the greatest, most recognisable players in the league. Goodes interacting with the crowd is news. No matter what the interaction.
[ 02. June 2013, 01:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my Australian bubble 'ape' is rarely used, and then only as a friendly confrontation on a minor stupidity. Of course, this does not preclude it being used in a racist manner, but I think it is notable because it is unusual.
Exactly.
It is impossible to prove a negative, and someone, somewhere at some time, in a population of twenty-two million could use the term in a racist sense, but it is unknown to most Australians - until now.
Your sample for most Australians consists of...?
So far on this thread you appear to be in the minority or about even. Sure as heck not most. I'm not suggesting it's the most common racist slur thrown at people with indigenous ancestry but it certainly exists.
[ 02. June 2013, 01:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
the crowd damn well recognised it.
A crowd of tens of thousands at a place the size of the MCG could not possibly have known at the time why she was being removed.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Really? This is your argument, that I did not properly define the scope of "crowd" or that if every person was not aware that it was an outrage or specifically more damaging?
Grasping at the smallest hold is understandable on the edge of a cliff, but a tad desperate in a conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, the notion that ape is not used in Australia as a racist word is, in my opinion, bullshit. What little bubble are you living in?
Same one as me, apparently. I've never encountered it as a racial slur in real life - only on the internet, talking to non-Aussies.
But surely you understand the difference between "I've never encountered.." and it does not exist?
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
Surely you understand the difference between 'it exists' and 'it is common'.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my Australian bubble 'ape' is rarely used, and then only as a friendly confrontation on a minor stupidity. Of course, this does not preclude it being used in a racist manner, but I think it is notable because it is unusual.
Exactly.
It is impossible to prove a negative, and someone, somewhere at some time, in a population of twenty-two million could use the term in a racist sense, but it is unknown to most Australians - until now.
To quote the original post ( by someone called Kaplan Corday)
quote:
For a start, there is no justification these days for any adult to engage in deliberate racial vilification by referring to a black person using any sort of simian terminology, and we have all been sickened by footage of chanting soccer crowds (or sections thereof) doing so to black players in Europe.
The "all" referred to Shippies following the thread, not to all Australians, as I thought would have been obvious from the context.
Are you saying that Australians are not encompassed in the phrase "any adult"?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In my Australian bubble 'ape' is rarely used, and then only as a friendly confrontation on a minor stupidity. Of course, this does not preclude it being used in a racist manner, but I think it is notable because it is unusual.
Exactly.
It is impossible to prove a negative, and someone, somewhere at some time, in a population of twenty-two million could use the term in a racist sense, but it is unknown to most Australians - until now.
To quote the original post ( by someone called Kaplan Corday)
quote:
For a start, there is no justification these days for any adult to engage in deliberate racial vilification by referring to a black person using any sort of simian terminology, and we have all been sickened by footage of chanting soccer crowds (or sections thereof) doing so to black players in Europe.
The "all" referred to Shippies following the thread, not to all Australians, as I thought would have been obvious from the context.
Are you saying that Australians are not encompassed in the phrase "any adult"?
Goodness me, you are getting desperate.
Talk about grasping at straws!
Is it not obvious to you that the "adult" refers to the issue, central to the thread, of whether a thirteen year-old is to be treated exactly the same as an adult?
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But surely you understand the difference between "I've never encountered.." and it does not exist?
Absolutely. And I think Kaplan Corday is (mostly) wrong in his opinions on this.
But, to be fair, I can see where he's coming from on the "but it's not an Australian slur!" thing - because I've never encountered it as one either.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Is it not obvious to you that the "adult" refers to the issue, central to the thread, of whether a thirteen year-old is to be treated exactly the same as an adult?
Did he even know she was thirteen when he pointed her out? She looks considerably older imo.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Is it not obvious to you that the "adult" refers to the issue, central to the thread, of whether a thirteen year-old is to be treated exactly the same as an adult?
Did he even know she was thirteen when he pointed her out? She looks considerably older imo.
He guessed she was maybe 14 - which is close enough to her real age. I think her face still looks very much that of a girl rather than a woman.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Goodness me, you are getting desperate.
Talk about grasping at straws!
Is it not obvious to you that the "adult" refers to the issue, central to the thread, of whether a thirteen year-old is to be treated exactly the same as an adult?
We can agree that there's desperation. It's in your series of self contradictory statements.
You both state that all adults are aware of the use of simian racial pejoratives and have been claiming that Australians are unaware of the racial usage of the term ape.
As for your claim that a thirteen year old should be treated differently than an adult, she was treated differently than an adult? There was mention of police complaints that were avoided because of her youth.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is your argument, that I did not properly define the scope of "crowd" or that if every person was not aware that it was an outrage or specifically more damaging?
The proportion of the crowd that expressed disapproval of her is not germane to the issue.
Many might have seen her as having been involved in something with the popular and brilliant Adam Goodes and therefore took his side – for all they knew she could have thrown something at him, spat toward him, or made an offensive comment with no racist content, such as a sexual slur about him or a member of his family.
The tiny proportion of the crowd in her immediate vicinity who would have been able to hear what she said, and who disapproved, might have been objecting to her insulting him as an ape without any awareness of a possible racist connotation to the term.
In other words, it simply doesn’t follow that the proportion of the crowd, small or great, which booed her were doing so because they thought she had been guilty of racism.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You both state that all adults are aware of the use of simian racial pejoratives and have been claiming that Australians are unaware of the racial usage of the term ape.
It is perfectly possible to be aware that ape can be used as a racial slur, and is in some parts of the world, but to be also aware that the usage is next to non-existent in Australia, as others beside myself have pointed out both on and off the Ship.
quote:
As for your claim that a thirteen year old should be treated differently than an adult, she was treated differently than an adult? There was mention of police complaints that were avoided because of her youth.
Police were called in, but Goodes did not press charges.
If he had, presumably she would have been prosecuted.
A thirteen year-old should not have been publicly evicted in the way she was in the first place.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I have been unable to find any Australians in my community whon think ape is a racial slur against Aboriginals. I have heard ape used among people almost as a term of endearment :"oh you big ape". I do not believe that the lass used ape in a racial sense, nor as an endearment, but maybe in frustration for her team and as a comment over the player's hairiness and muscularity. It was really a very mild comment compared with what is heard at the football. IMO Goodes behaved like a prick in his reaction and has ceased to be honourable. It is possible that he was on the lookout for an opportunity to wave his own racial flag during the indigenous football series week and took advantage of the child's outburst. The girl did the wrong thing, but Goodes' behaviour was worse.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You both state that all adults are aware of the use of simian racial pejoratives and have been claiming that Australians are unaware of the racial usage of the term ape.
It is perfectly possible to be aware that ape can be used as a racial slur, and is in some parts of the world, but to be also aware that the usage is next to non-existent in Australia, as others beside myself have pointed out both on and off the Ship.
So now your argument is that an Australian girl would know perfectly well that ape is capable of being a racial insult, but because she is Australian she is incapable of using it?
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Historically it has been used. I did a bit of research of the newspaper archives last night and found lots of articles where scientists, journalists and letter writers compared Aboriginal Australians to apes or the missing link based on their physical features, especially facial features, and culture. The idea started to die out once white people realised that Aboriginal people were more intelligent than they assumed,once white people had total control of all Australia and also after WWII perhaps because people didn't want to be associated with the Nazis. This didn't stop discrimination and racist laws continuing, and even today Aboriginal people are subject to different laws in some parts of Australia eg. the intervention in the Northern Territory. Lots of laws were made in order to 'help' Aboriginal people, but were very patronising and controlling. It was a long time before Aboriginal Australians were equal under law and casual racism and discrimination continue.
Some later articles also refer to Aboriginals living traditionally in a more positive light (the idea of the noble savage), but ridicule Aboriginals who try to ape white behaviour. And yes that is the exact word they use.
I've posted some links below, but beware they are very racist.
Aborigines and Apes
The Missing Link at Last
The Missing Link
The Science Congress
Primitive Man in Ancient Australia
Be Kind to Your Brother, the Monkey
Lecture on Aboriginals 1912
The articles range from the 1900s when the idea of Aboriginal people as close to apes peaked up to the 1920s.
Also we all know what happened in Tasmania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_War
Here is a contemporary letter from Dr. Adam Turnbull defending his support of the 'black line'. He goes on a lot but notice he seems far more concerned with his friends family and everyone back in the UK thinking he is a blood thirsty supporter of wholesale massacre than the fact that his is supporting an action that could lead to wholesale massacre. If you read the letters below his you can see that some other Tasmanians were quite willing to massacre the Aboriginals in Tasmania without any qualms. Interestingly at this time there did seem to be more respect for the Aboriginal people as equal opponents, however the settlers could not seem to understand that maybe they didn't have the right to take over the land and saw the only solutions to the 'Aboriginal problem' as subjugation of the indigenous population, removing them from settled land (which eventually would be all of Tasmania anyway)or killing them.
Letter from Tasmanian Adam Turnbull 1830
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
In soccer if someone got red carded for any violation he or she would have been escorted out of the arena as well. As a former referee I see nothing wrong with the way security ushered this 13 out. She was asked to leave. She got up without much protest and she was walked out.
It still bothers me, though, that her grandmother did not walk out with her, but I do not see this as Goode's problem or as a security problem. I place the problem on the grandmother.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... A thirteen year-old should not have been publicly evicted in the way she was in the first place.
How the hell do you remove someone from a public event without the public noticing? If she'd thrown a bottle, she would have been evicted in public. If she had removed her top, she would have been evicted in public. If she had slapped another spectator, she would have been evicted in public. Hell, if she'd barfed up her popcorn, she probably would have been removed.
You seem to have some really wacky standards for dealing with inappropriate behaviour in public. Everyone has to notice, but it should be dealt with so nobody notices. And nobody who is thirteen can ever be held to account for their behaviour, because, well, they're just thirteen.
All public events have behavioural expectations, explicit and implicit. The behaviour of a sporting crowd is different that the behaviour of a theatre audience, but there are still standards at both places, and violating them will get you tossed. You could be tossed for merely texting at the theatre, which wouldn't even be noticed at the game, but the principle is the same: allowing the rest of the audience to continue enjoying the event.
Read the fine print on the back of any ticket to any event. It says the management reserves the right to refuse admission or remove the person for pretty much anything. ETA: It will also say that you agree to be photographed or recorded at the event and those images may be published or broadcast. Management acted within their rights and it's absurd to expect any sort of privacy in the audience at a public event. Discretion, maybe. Privacy, not a chance. Something people of all ages should keep in mind while screaming their heads off at the game.
[ 02. June 2013, 16:12: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Except that I think racism is worse than common abuse. If one footballer calls another a dozy twat, it's no big deal; if he calls him a dozy black twat, that seems in a different category to me.
Can you explain that a little more ?
If someone calls me (just for example) a "dozy English bastard" then - given that I self-identify as English - that seems to me neither more nor less offensive than just calling me a "dozy bastard".
There may be an implication - possibly in the tone of voice used - that that someone doesn't like the English much. Or finds it unsurprising that someone English is acting like a dozy bastard.
But that's speculation about his thoughts. In terms of his speech-acts, he has not asserted anything about the English in general. Only that this particular specimen is both dozy and a bastard.
So in the improbable scenario that it was unlawful to express anti-English opinion, I would have to find him not guilty. It is perfectly consistent with the view that the English are no better and no worse than other nations that one of them should happen to be a dozy bastard.
quote:
Racism has so many cultural and historical associations, that it is (rightly, in my view) considered to be heinous.
I agree that racism is a serious enough issue that we rightly tolerate some curtailment of freedom of speech in order that a generation or three should grow up with the notion that black-skinned people are inherently no better and no worse than light-skinned people. In contrast to the views of various societies in the past.
But in order to be a heinous offence something has to be well-defined; a person of goodwill cannot commit a heinous offence by accident; it requires malice.
And if someone is accused of a heinous offence then they have a right to be considered as innocent until proven guilty. In contrast, if you're just using "racist" as a neutral descriptive term meaning something like "pertaining to race" then you can apply it and debate its applicability as you please.
If "black" or "racist" or "cretin" or any other term is recognised as derogatory then you have to be careful how you apply it. Conversely if "black" or "racist" or "cretin" is a value-neutral description of someone's skin colour, political philosophy or mental ability then it's applicability should be capable of detached and dispassionate discussion.
You seem to want to jump from one to the other as it suits you.
Racism as serious crime vs racism as ill-defined concept that we can all chat about down the pub without dissing anyone. Black as derogatory vs black as definitely-not-derogatory.
Do please explain.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Except that I think racism is worse than common abuse. If one footballer calls another a dozy twat, it's no big deal; if he calls him a dozy black twat, that seems in a different category to me.
Can you explain that a little more ?
If someone calls me (just for example) a "dozy English bastard" then - given that I self-identify as English - that seems to me neither more nor less offensive than just calling me a "dozy bastard".
Russ
It is about power. It is about history. when a group you belong to has been enslaved, wholesale slaughtered or made second class in their own lands, then you might understand the comparisons.
Kudos to those who are not marginalised yet still comprehend.
[ 02. June 2013, 16:39: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
And the Double Daily of racism and sexism is when people assume -- based on nothing more than my sex and skin colour -- that I am employed as a nurse or housekeeper, not an administrator.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
{{{{Soror Magna}}}}
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Historically it has been used. I did a bit of research of the newspaper archives last night and found lots of articles where scientists, journalists and letter writers compared Aboriginal Australians to apes or the missing link based on their physical features, especially facial features, and culture.
There was an outburst worldwide of that sort of thing during the second half of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth, as a result of the popularisation and misunderstanding of Darwinism which flowed from the publication of The Origin Of Species in 1859 - which is not to blame Darwin for the misuse of his ideas.
It was offensive and wrongheaded, but a completely different phenomenon from present deliberate attempts by racists (who have probably never heard of Darwin) to vilify blacks by identifying them with monkeys.
Have you read The Lamb Enters The Dreaming by Robert Kenny?
Amongst other things, he shows the way in which Christians in Australia and the United States opposed the theory of non-Europeans' sub-humanity by asserting a biblical anthropology based on the KJV translation of Acts 17:26, "one blood" (the title of John Harris's classic history of the "Aboriginal Encounter With Christianity", which I hope you have also read).
[ 03. June 2013, 05:41: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So now your argument is that an Australian girl would know perfectly well that ape is capable of being a racial insult, but because she is Australian she is incapable of using it?
I don’t believe that you cannot grasp that it is possible to be aware that the comparison of black people to monkeys occurs, particularly in Europe, and simultaneously aware that the practice is virtually unknown in Australia.
Goodes was aware of the usage, which explains his anger but does not justify his response.
The girl, like many Australians, obviously did not understand the possible racist connotations of the term until they were explained to her.
If she had known previously, then she would have been culpable, but not, in a civilized society, treated as being as culpable as an adult who had knowingly done the same thing.
Incidentally, it will cheer you up to know that I have discovered one case from 1986 of Australian spectators making monkey noises at a black cricketer, though there is no record of their doing the same to his black team-mates, which could mean that the insult was caused by his (apparently distinctive) physique rather than his colour.
[ 03. June 2013, 06:07: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The behaviour of a sporting crowd is different that the behaviour of a theatre audience, but there are still standards at both places, and violating them will get you tossed.
You are begging the question by assuming that she did something wrong.
She didn't.
There is no standard at AFL matches which requires that spectators cannot liken players - or umpires - to animals.
She called him an ape, which to her and the vast majority of Australians was no worse than calling a player a pig or a donkey, the sort of insult which would pass unnoticed.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Incidentally, it will cheer you up to know that I have discovered one case from 1986 of Australian spectators making monkey noises at a black cricketer, though there is no record of their doing the same to his black team-mates, which could mean that the insult was caused by his (apparently distinctive) physique rather than his colour.
Are you referring to the 2007 incident with the touring Indian cricket team player allegedly calling
Andrew Symmonds a monkey or an earlier episode?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Russ
It is about power. It is about history. [/QB][/QUOTE]
It is also about choice and perception.
My ancestors came from Wales, and I could choose to believe that I had a grievance because the "racially" different English violently subjugated us under Edward I and Henry IV, and then culturally vilified us ("Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief...").
As it happens I do not labour under any self-pity on this score, and would be derisively dismissive of any others of Welsh background who claimed to do so, but it illustrates the problem of whether a subjective perception of historical victimhood should preclude any critical analysis of the phenomenon by those outside the group.
It is also selective.
For example, the anti-Semitic racism which from time to time breaks through the "anti-Zionism" veneer of BDS campaigns gets precious short shrift from professional anti-racists.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
I haven't read those particluar books Kaplan Corday, however I have read about and watched documentaries on the role of missions in Australia and the good and bad they did for Indigenous Australians. There were definitely contemporary people who stood up against the scientific racism of their times, although some of those people still saw Aborginal people as inferior and suited to servant or farm hand roles in Australian society. Other missions educated Aboriginal people equally as they would white people which helped break down the stereotypes that Aboriginal people were less intelligent, rational or logical than white people.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
I've also heard Scott Darlow, an Aboriginal Christian speaker, talk about reconciliation and the experiences his mother's family had living on a mission. I found a podcast from when he spoke at Essendon Baptist Community Church and I hope it's within ships rules to link it here if you or anyone else would like to listen. Darlow begins the talk about reconciliation at around the 17 minute mark.
I realised from checking preview post that it only links to the podcast page, but if you click on speaker it rearranges the podcasts alphabetically by speakers' first names and you can scroll down to find Scott Darlow's podcast near the bottom.
[ 03. June 2013, 08:19: Message edited by: Mili ]
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Incidentally, it will cheer you up to know that I have discovered one case from 1986 of Australian spectators making monkey noises at a black cricketer, though there is no record of their doing the same to his black team-mates, which could mean that the insult was caused by his (apparently distinctive) physique rather than his colour.
Are you referring to the 2007 incident with the touring Indian cricket team player allegedly calling
Andrew Symmonds a monkey or an earlier episode?
I found a Sydney Morning Herald article making reference to an England player being abused in that way in 1986 in Melbourne. Being a player on the English side (which has only ever had one or maybe two black players at any one time) would seem to indicate it was a clear cut episode of racism, there being only a 9% chance of the abused player happening to be the one black player on the team if it was not a racist attack. As far as I know there has never been a white player on an Australian or English team pelted with bananas and abused with monkey noises, which would narrow the margin even more.
The 2007-08 incidents were a completely separate deal, and perpetrated by Indian spectators and (allegedly) one Indian player.
I don't think the majority of people who were at that 1986 match at the MCG or the thousands of Collingwood fans who abused Nicky Winmar at Victoria Park 20 years ago are likely to be any less racist than they used to be. They have probably just grown older and no longer go to the cricket/football, or they do but they don't voice their racist prejudices because they don't want to get caught.
I don't blame white Australians for being brought up assuming certain racist prejudices, for most it's something their parents passed down to them. What's more important is what they do with it once their casual racism or latent racism is exposed for what they are - some realise they are wrong, others just keep it to themselves so they don't face any consequences, others don't back down and find themselves in hot water when it catches up with them, and still others make awkward and contradictory long-winded explanations (maybe on an internet forum) trying to justify why their casual racism or latent racism is not racism.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So now your argument is that an Australian girl would know perfectly well that ape is capable of being a racial insult, but because she is Australian she is incapable of using it?
I don’t believe that you cannot grasp that it is possible to be aware that the comparison of black people to monkeys occurs, particularly in Europe, and simultaneously aware that the practice is virtually unknown in Australia.
Goodes was aware of the usage, which explains his anger but does not justify his response.
The girl, like many Australians, obviously did not understand the possible racist connotations of the term until they were explained to her.
If she had known previously, then she would have been culpable, but not, in a civilized society, treated as being as culpable as an adult who had knowingly done the same thing.
Incidentally, it will cheer you up to know that I have discovered one case from 1986 of Australian spectators making monkey noises at a black cricketer, though there is no record of their doing the same to his black team-mates, which could mean that the insult was caused by his (apparently distinctive) physique rather than his colour.
There's nothing obvious about your use of the word obvious here. Maybe you know something I don't because I'm halfway around the world right now, but it sounds a heck of a lot like you've projected your view onto the girl. If she says she understands the term is racist, how exactly is it 'obvious' that her understanding only arose once she was in trouble?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
By the way, your logic is also requiring the insult to be incredibly rare in Australia yet to have been experienced by a particular individual, Goodes, more than once in his life. So what are you saying? That he's just a really unlucky statistical fluke?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Also, can we at least put aside any cultural use of ape as a term of endearment as completely bloody irrelevant. I don't care what age she is, a collingwood supporter is NOT yelling out a term at a Sydney player because she thinks it's a term of endearment she's heard Collingwood folk use to describe each other. The context is completely at odds with her having that kind of understanding. She meant it as an insult!! The only possible question is precisely what kind of insult she meant it as.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And the Double Daily of racism and sexism is when people assume -- based on nothing more than my sex and skin colour -- that I am employed as a nurse or housekeeper, not an administrator.
I'll let you say how you feel about that - I don't want to put words in your mouth.
But can you tell the difference between
- those who make an honest mistake through responding to what is in their experience statistically most likely, without having any axe to grind or any emotional investment in that perception
- those who are surprised because they tend to think dark-skinned people inherently incapable of filling white-collar positions
- those who are surprised because they want to believe that having a dark skin is an automatic marker of victim status
?
Do you use the terms "racist" and "racism" for all three groups ?
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Working backwards:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Do you use the terms "racist" and "racism" for all three groups ?
I make an effort to refer to racist statements, behaviours, etc. rather than racist people. I probably slip occasionally, from carelessness or worse. Sorry.
quote:
- those who are surprised because they want to believe that having a dark skin is an automatic marker of victim status
I couldn't say, having never encountered such a thing. I am, however, reminded of Jon Stewart joking, "Because Barack Obama is President, ipso facto, Wingardium leviosa, racism is over!"
quote:
- those who are surprised because they tend to think dark-skinned people inherently incapable of filling white-collar positions
Racism is one possible description. Really dumb is another - after all, dark-skinned people work in all professions all around the world.
quote:
- those who make an honest mistake through responding to what is in their experience statistically most likely, without having any axe to grind or any emotional investment in that perception
Yes, that is an example of racism. Why? Because it is applied selectively. If you happen to have three friends who are Irish and are all librarians, it's an amusing coincidence. When introduced to another Irish person, it would never occur to you to say, "Hey, you must be a librarian!" But if you happen to have, oh, say, two or three Asian or South Asian friends in technical professions, it might seem perfectly natural to start a conversation with certain persons with, "So, do you work in IT?" See the difference? Some people are subjected to statistical assumptions, others are not.
Nice people seem to have real trouble recognizing anything other than the nastiest forms of racism e.g. discrimination or violence, but those are not the only ways racism manifests itself. Is being subjected to occasional rudeness better than suffering violence or discrimination? Well, yeah, sure, but they still all come from the same roots. History has shown over and over that it doesn't take much for those roots to grow into something awful. That's why mild forms of racism or prejudice still need to be identified and challenged - they're fertile soil for worse racism to grow.
All humans have a kind of us/them hard-wiring, but that particular trait, which was once a survival skill, is of less and less usefulness in the modern world (to put it mildly.) Globalization and immigration, ethnic and religious barriers weakening, travelling and studying abroad --- there are myriad forces moving people around the globe, and it will only increase as time goes on. We're all going to have to get used to seeing lots of faces that are not like our own. Seeing them as people is even better.
TL;DR - Huh? Yes. Yes.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
By the way, your logic is also requiring the insult to be incredibly rare in Australia yet to have been experienced by a particular individual, Goodes, more than once in his life.
Calling someone an ape is not all that uncommon an insult.
What is rare in Australia is its use as a racial insult.
Goodes made a mistake in assuming the thirteen year-old meant it as a racial insult, and not the sort of harmless animal insult which is acceptable at football matches, and it is possible he similarly misconstrued it in the past on the basis of his knowledge of its being so used in other countries.
The girl only stated that it was a racial slur after she was taken into custody by a number of adult authority figures, including police, who told her it was racist.
She had no adult to stick up for her and put her side, except her grandmother, who was called in belatedly, and was probably as frightened and overawed by the whole disgraceful overreaction as her grand-daughter.
In the circumstances, what else was someone that age going to say?
Speaking of primate labels, I just remembered today that the old VFL club Fitzroy, now the AFL club Brisbane, was known as the Gorillas when I was a very small child.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
The Lions are the team I support - I knew they were the Gorillas at one point, but not why they changed. I just googled it and it turns out they they changed the name because it led to people mocking the team and a cartoonist called Sam Wells liked portraying the players as gorillas. Part of the reason they chose the Lion was because it was a symbol of England! So you can see how times have changed - noone would call their team gorillas now and definitely nobody would name an Australian sports team in honour of England!
Also another team is called the Bombers, but you wouldn't call a Muslim player that. Nor would I want to be yelled at for swanning around or being catty.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Yes, that is an example of racism. Why? Because it is applied selectively. If you happen to have three friends who are Irish and are all librarians, it's an amusing coincidence. When introduced to another Irish person, it would never occur to you to say, "Hey, you must be a librarian!" But if you happen to have, oh, say, two or three Asian or South Asian friends in technical professions, it might seem perfectly natural to start a conversation with certain persons with, "So, do you work in IT?" See the difference? Some people are subjected to statistical assumptions, others are not.
Sounds like your objection is to people having one set of manners or standard of politeness for use with dark-skinned people and another standard for use with pale-skinned people.
(I'd agree that that is racism, by the way)
But on that understanding, the person who is equally rude to everyone, or equally over-attached to stereotyped ideas of other people (thinking that all Irishman work in construction and drink Guiness, and all computer programmers have no social life and live on pizza) is not racist. Just struggling to cope with the complexity of life...
quote:
Is being subjected to occasional rudeness better than suffering violence or discrimination? Well, yeah, sure, but they still all come from the same roots.[
Which again sounds like the issue is with the attitudes underlying the action rather than with the speech-act itself.
quote:
We're all going to have to get used to seeing lots of faces that are not like our own. Seeing them as people is even better.
Agreed. Treating people as people is what it should be all about.
Best wishes,
Russ
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0