SA Footy

bennymacca wrote:What?

I am saying what you think is offensive is irrelevant to what he thinks is offensive

this... spot on.

I call my mates a c*nt all the time. Doesn't mean others don't have the right to be offended if I said it to them

Lightning McQueen wrote:

whufc wrote:
Agree but I think people got upset that she has now been labelled a racist and put through hell when (potentially) her comments had zero racist motives.

Only she will ever know what her motives were. I wouldn't be surprised either way

I think there are plenty of worse remarks that could be made if she intended to be racist.

If it wasn't for the Andrew Symonds thing I wouldn't have known it was a racist remark.

At the time, she might not have understood it as racist, but everyone should now.
It's not hard to Google and find current and historical examples of big, black gorillas being used to portray the uncivilised brutes of African/Aboriginal tribes. It's out there.
And it's a common thread in early 20th century conceptualisation of both indigenous Australians and immigrating peoples - particularly Asians and subcontinental Asians (which is why I didn't buy Harbijhan Singh's claim it wasn't a racial-based term, as it was commonly used by westerners against Indians), who were regularly portrayed as 'monkeys'.
Favourite adventure books from my childhood portray non-white people as gorillas and monkeys - see Biggles and Tintin.
It's really not as far from the mainstream as people might think.
Even Eddie McGuire, thinking he'd hit on the PR scoop of the century in suggesting Goodes go and promote King Kong was pointing at a movie/theatre character that some think has a subplot of racial definition - the big gorilla, read black people, coming out of the jungle, read Africa, to steal 'our' women, read Ann Darrow (average, beautiful white woman), while trying to climb to the top of society (read 1930s architectural icon the Empire State Building in the capital of capitalism and aspiration). What happens to Kong? He gets shot down by white man.
The sad thing is, now it has been brought to light as inherently racist, people continue to say "but he does look like an ape" or, as happened on the weekend, "get back to the zoo".
People might not believe it is racist, but history tells us that it is.

We are all free to think but we'll be judged on our actions. We all live in the same community after all.

bennymacca wrote:I call my mates a c*nt all the time. Doesn't mean others don't have the right to be offended if I said it to them

That's an obvious case, there are others that would invite more discussion. I disagree with our non right to an opinion.it issues a carte blanche and creates more problems.

Who is saying you can't have an opinion?

bennymacca wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

whufc wrote:
Agree but I think people got upset that she has now been labelled a racist and put through hell when (potentially) her comments had zero racist motives.

Only she will ever know what her motives were. I wouldn't be surprised either way

I think there are plenty of worse remarks that could be made if she intended to be racist.

If it wasn't for the Andrew Symonds thing I wouldn't have known it was a racist remark.

Thats not your call to make, thats Adams.

I get called an ape when I take my shirt off, it's because I look apeish, I'm hairy and have long arms.

Because that doesn't offend you doesn't mean it isn't racist to Goodes.

Lightning McQueen wrote:I get called an ape when I take my shirt off, it's because I look apeish, I'm hairy and have long arms.

I don't call you an ape.. I call you rugged and manly

Zartan wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:I get called an ape when I take my shirt off, it's because I look apeish, I'm hairy and have long arms.

I don't call you an ape.. I call you rugged and manly

And Snookins.

Well said Micky O

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-29/swa ... .mobileapp

bennymacca wrote:Because that doesn't offend you doesn't mean it isn't racist to Goodes.

Yeah nah.

bennymacca wrote:Who is saying you can't have an opinion?

I'm reading over and over that anyone who boos Goodes is a racist. Yet we are entitled to our opinions?
I'm saying there are definitely people who boo for their own reasons yet those opinions are clearly not being considered.
So which one is it?

bennymacca wrote:Well said Micky O

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2015-07-29/swa ... .mobileapp

You reckon?

therisingblues wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Who is saying you can't have an opinion?

I'm reading over and over that anyone who boos Goodes is a racist. Yet we are entitled to our opinions?
I'm saying there are definitely people who boo for their own reasons yet those opinions are clearly not being considered.
So which one is it?

You are entitled to an opinion, nobody said anything about the validity of said opinion.

bennymacca wrote:Because that doesn't offend you doesn't mean it isn't racist to Goodes.

It's like West Indians eating KFC at the cricket again.
African Americans found the campaign to be racist, until they realised the context, but it was the first I or just about anyone I know ever heard of that negative connotation of black people and chicken. That does not make me racist, and the majority of black people in America, with the correct education, would have realised the same.
Just to provide a clear example.

So if 80 non racists and 20 racists all boo at the same time, how can you tell them apart?

Do you think it is then the job of the 20 racists to shut up, the 80 non racists to realist the sensitivity of the situation and maybe just tone it down a bit, or on the man being booed to "harden up a bit"

bennymacca wrote:

therisingblues wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Who is saying you can't have an opinion?

I'm reading over and over that anyone who boos Goodes is a racist. Yet we are entitled to our opinions?
I'm saying there are definitely people who boo for their own reasons yet those opinions are clearly not being considered.
So which one is it?

You are entitled to an opinion, nobody said anything about the validity of said opinion.

Sure, people have invalid opinions, but to ignore them completely and then put words in their mouths is what exactly?
Remember you aren't saying those opinions aren't valid, you've just assumed they are all racist.

therisingblues wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Because that doesn't offend you doesn't mean it isn't racist to Goodes.

It's like West Indians eating KFC at the cricket again.
African Americans found the campaign to be racist, until they realised the context, but it was the first I or just about anyone I know ever heard of that negative connotation of black people and chicken. That does not make me racist, and the majority of black people in America, with the correct education, would have realised the same.
Just to provide a clear example.

Different.
Aboriginal people in Australia do find being called an "ape" offensive.
The West Indian cricket side did not find the fried chicken concept as offensive.

Still on cricket, have you noted Australian cricket promotions no longer use the word 'Paki'.
The name had no connotation here, but it certainly does in the UK, hence it was dropped.
Should we be angry we can't call the Pakistanis Pakis any more? Or should we just accept it and get on with life?

I haven't assumed they are all racist at all. Read my posts. I have said they can't complain if they are lumped in with the racists if they continue to allow themselves to be associated with them by booing.