If a "Middle aged White male" BOO's in the forest, is he still a RACIST???

[pottery beige]

watch and learn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znodcpMzcnA

[OCTANEBOSS]

Originally Posted by 37Clevo

http://video.news.com.au/v/115578/Wa...sponse-in-full

I hope everyone has seen this interview to the end. And not just read trash newspapers and listened to trash radio.

I can relate to that.
Reminds me of when I went to school, called a white maggot, king hit walking around the local fair for minding my own business, chased because I had a push bike and I was a whitey - yet play football on the same team on the weekend and smash the opposition, We even used to have spearing's every year too, mainly for breaches of the tribal law, they were still good days and wouldn't change that life experience for nothing I had it good compared to some. Maybe some HTFU in cans should administered to all players and supporters at every AFL game from here on in & duct over the mouths of the media peanuts who bandy around political correctness as a insult to stir up the public. Hidden supervision - castration of the human mind

[chamb0]

http://theconversation.com/when-raci...s-furore-45646

Originally Posted by The Conversation

When Racism Masquerades as “Equality”: The Adam Goodes Furore

Throughout most of Australia’s modern history white society has worked hard to make Indigenous Australians disappear. In the early days it took the brutal forms of ‘dispersion’ and taking children from their families.

But a people can be made invisible in subtler ways. Aborigines were declared a dying race, written out of the history books, banned from speaking their languages, confined to missions and sent to the margins of towns. Some have been dismissed as too white to be black or, if too black, turned into cultural relics captured on ashtrays or infantilized as noble savages.

In recent decades Indigenous people have watched as the uncovering of this history of killing and exclusion has been whitewashed as a ‘black armband’ view of Australian history, so that not only the act of wiping them out but the memory of it too must be denied.

For a people rendered invisible, one of the most powerful forms of protest at their disposal is simply to makes themselves visible, to become a constant reminder. Their mere presence disturbs the fiction of their disappearance, the more so if their presence is not a silent one. And so Aboriginal people have used every celebration of European settlement to remind white society that its achievements are built on an original theft.

Those who believe Indigenous people should disappear are discomforted, sometimes deeply, by expressions of Indigenous presence. This is Adam Goodes’s crime. His critics defend their position by insisting that Australia is an equal society and that Goodes and all Aboriginal people should be “like everyone else”.

Many of his critics would never consciously discriminate against Aboriginal people – they may even have some as friends – but the demand for sameness is a more insidious form of racism because it hides behind a moral principle that no one can dispute. The appeal to “equality” gives the subtler form of racism deniability.

Adam Goodes has become the lightening rod for the kind of racism that insists that it is no such thing, a racism that is unable to see that it is not possible to draw a line under history and make it disappear, let alone wipe away ten thousand years of culture.

As well as the more obvious kind, Pauline Hanson was a master at the kind of racism rendered deniable by the appeal to equality. She claimed that all she wanted was for Aboriginal people to be treated “like everyone else”. But they are not like everyone else and insisting that they are is a means of dismissing everything of which Indigenous people are most proud. It is a stance that wants to see Indigenous people swallowed up into the mass.

This sentiment has been unleashed in the Adam Goodes story. Jeff Kennett made the argument at length on radio a few days ago. The crowds are booing Adam Goodes not because they are racist, he insisted. They boo him because he said Australia Day should be called Invasion Day, because he called out a naïve 13-year old who called him an “ape”, and because he performed an Aboriginal dance.

It did not occur to Kennett that all of these incidents took place because Adam Goodes is Indigenous, as expressions of his Aboriginality. No, for Kennett Adam Goodes brought it all on himself. If he had not mentioned Invasion Day, if he had ignored the racial slur, and if he celebrated a goal in the usual way the football crowds would be happy and none of this would have happened.

In other words, if Goodes would just behave like white football players everything would be OK.

Jeff Kennett’s view is racist. It wants to see the completion of the 200-year process of making Indigenous people disappear. Because Adam Goodes refuses to make his Aboriginality invisible Jeff Kennett is angry with him.

And with Kennett stand a gallery of privileged white men – Shane Warne, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones – who have told Goodes and all Indigenous people that they should stop complaining and just get on with it, where “it” means being like white people.

Every time men like Andrew Bolt and John Howard declare that Australia is not a racist nation they drive a dagger into the heart of Indigenous Australia because they are robbing them of the truth of their history and the truth of their daily lives.

The extraordinary outpouring of support for Adam Goodes proves that huge numbers of Australians understand that history matters and that racism should not hide behind calls for sameness. They are gratified – proud, even – that Indigenous people can express their pride in their culture and heritage, in their difference.

When all Australians accept that Indigenous people should not disappear, and that their distinctiveness is inseparable from the nation’s constitution, only then can we begin to believe that perhaps Australia is no longer a racist nation.

[superyob]

Cannot entirely agree with that article chambo. In the NRL, Thurston and Ingliss and Hodges and Thaiday are Gods, to name few. They express their indigenous culture on the field and the mainly white crowds love it...

I have nothing against Goodes as I have no reason to judge him but maybe he has simply ticked the AFL spectators off?

[davenl5l]

Australia is not a racist country if you want to see racism go to the usa or japan.

[CoupeKing]

Originally Posted by davenl5l

Australia is not a racist country if you want to see racism go to the usa .

Yet their President is black.

[Mesa]

My sister has lived in Sacramento for over 30 years. The USA has always been a racial hotpot compared to Australia but in her opinion the country has never been more racially divided since the election of Obama.

[solarite_guy]

Yes. I live here and this is absolutely true.

[Ross 1]

Even in New York, supposedly the most racial diverse city in the world, my wife and I got strange looks every day. I'm white, she's a darker shade of beige and our two kids are one white, one dark. We were speaking to friends and relatives there and it is still a big deal to some people in the USA.

[solarite_guy]

This has become very accentuated since Obama became president.

He very often makes statements that create divides.

My favorite sister is married to a black man. He looks like Jimi Hendrix. Their daughter married an Asian man a few months ago. She is so beautiful.

But Obama's statements have created huge divides.

[jpblue1000]

Yeah! I don't see the citizens of the USA booing an AFL player in the states. I see it here in Australia proving as the article suggests, Thanks Chambo, racism is alive and well, maybe just invisible to the bigot. And claiming Racism is worse in other places or other peoples is not an excuse to race them to the gutter.
Clive Hamilton's sentiments summarise my feelings about the whole saga, I see a significantly racist, bigoted, selfish society in Australia and too many Australians, Goodes aside!.

JP

[superyob]

There are some who won't see any other argument other than white Australia is racist. If we agree with them, we are admitting our racism, if we deny or put forward any other argument, no matter how reasoned, we are denying our racism. Either way, white Australia is damned. I give up. I am a racist pig not worthy of any further discussion in this thread...

[monzie]

So all these years people have been boo'ing the umpires is because they are racist. Is it still alright to boo the umps decisions? or is that banned as well.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by superyob

There are some who won't see any other argument other than white Australia is racist. If we agree with them, we are admitting our racism, if we deny or put forward any other argument, no matter how reasoned, we are denying our racism. Either way, white Australia is damned. I give up. I am a racist pig not worthy of any further discussion in this thread...

Its not just white Australia. And no, you're not damned if you do and if you don't. There is no issue booing people (besides a morale issue and the question of sportsmanship) and the crowd in Australia, as always, boo's people. Its part and parcel of the games we attend.

If you argue that you're not racist, that's fine. You don't like Goodes staging for kicks (not that I think he does, but sure) or that he isnt a great player, again sure, boo away! No problem here and yes, you're not a racist simply for booing.

The issue here is that his booing started and intensified post the incident with the girl. Therein lies the difference. It was further exaggerated once he did the war dance and the Australia of the Year speech he made (all that has been rewritten to fit a negative view of Goodes). Throw in the explanations provided by the "I'm not a racist but" brigade and then you see the racism. Heck, read through some of the posts on this thread.

The Context is everything.

You're not damned if you do, damned if you don't and the White Australian isn't the automatic racist. There are just some cultural norms that never get challenged that have roots of separation and differentiation.

Think about this. Why is it that when a white person immigrates to another country he's called an expatriate (expat) but if you're any other colour, you're an immigrant.

If a Brown Person flies a plane into a building, he's a terrorist (or thats where the investigation will end). If he's White (Germanwings), he's got mental issues. There is a lot of double standards. Why can't both people be crazy.

During the Katrina floods in USA, there was the issue of two pictures, white couple and black couple. The first caption was that people were searching for food, the latter said the looting continued (both had a loaf of bread in their hands). Also with Riots in America, one set are branded thugs and another just over enthusiastic youths.

Port Arthur massacre killed more people than the Sydney siege. Both were mad men. One is branded a terrorist...

No, White Australia doesn't have to be apologetic for anything if their context is not racist. The tricky thing is that we have so many notions, its sometimes hard to realise when we are being racist (just like the 13 year old girl).

Education and cultural sensitivity across both sides (as Adam Goodes has always pushed) is what is necessary. Not needing to be PC, but sensitive.

HTFU doesn't address this...

[MAD]

This whole racism thing is out of control.

I don't see myself as a racist, I judge and accept people based on a set of unconscious guidelines that have been built in to my being through all events within my life that is how we are created. (I am who I am so just accept me) For me in particular my guidelines revolve primarily around morals, loyalty, ethics, honesty, as well as many intangibles (intuition). If you fit my guidelines, I will have no problem with you.
But there is also levels of this. There is acquaintance level, friend level, workmate level. A different bar is set for each of these for all people I encounter. I will talk and socialise with people at work that I would definitely not choose to socialise with outside work hours.


Different people, and different groups of people, will have different ways in which they judge acceptance of others. (Religions, races, cultures, social groups, economic standing, and any other gathering of like-mindedness.)
I wouldn't begin to claim acceptance in all of the available groups.

You wouldn't expect to be accepted in to the core of a drug cartel if you were just some average bloke off the street, but if you fit their mould you just might.



IMO, Adam did what he did to antagonise the crowd, no two ways about it, and what he got in return was the branches of the trees from the seeds he sewed.
If it were a celebration of some sort (as the Haka is) it would be performed at an appropriate time.
And if it is performed with the same intention as the Haka, it would be directed at the side that they were about to engage war with, not the crowd. (unless of course the intention was to enter in to a war with the crowd.)



If the basic core of the definition of racism is acceptance of others for who they are, doesn't this also apply in reverse? Or is it only that the perceived hard-done by group needs to be accepted, and the 'bad guys' need to adjust?

[kypez]

Originally Posted by MAD

This whole racism thing is out of control.

I don't see myself as a racist, I judge and accept people based on a set of unconscious guidelines that have been built in to my being through all events within my life that is how we are created. (I am who I am so just accept me) For me in particular my guidelines revolve primarily around morals, loyalty, ethics, honesty, as well as many intangibles (intuition). If you fit my guidelines, I will have no problem with you.
But there is also levels of this. There is acquaintance level, friend level, workmate level. A different bar is set for each of these for all people I encounter. I will talk and socialise with people at work that I would definitely not choose to socialise with outside work hours.


Different people, and different groups of people, will have different ways in which they judge acceptance of others. (Religions, races, cultures, social groups, economic standing, and any other gathering of like-mindedness.)
I wouldn't begin to claim acceptance in all of the available groups.

You wouldn't expect to be accepted in to the core of a drug cartel if you were just some average bloke off the street, but if you fit their mould you just might.



IMO, Adam did what he did to antagonise the crowd, no two ways about it, and what he got in return was the branches of the trees from the seeds he sewed.
If it were a celebration of some sort (as the Haka is) it would be performed at an appropriate time.
And if it is performed with the same intention as the Haka, it would be directed at the side that they were about to engage war with, not the crowd. (unless of course the intention was to enter in to a war with the crowd.)



If the basic core of the definition of racism is acceptance of others for who they are, doesn't this also apply in reverse? Or is it only that the perceived hard-done by group needs to be accepted, and the 'bad guys' need to adjust?

Suppose you're right, ever thought the crowd got the "branches of the tree from the seed they sowed"?

[XG_Falcon]

I don't think you're all going to be able to see eye to eye on this topic.

[gozzaxr6t]

Originally Posted by kypez

try not to mix agendas...

How nice. White people pay your salary so we can boo you and be racist towards you... Seriously?! Do you think before you type?

As for the UFC guy, What's the history for the guy with the Brown Pride tat? What's the context? Same if you had a white pride tat, context is everything.

Ohhhh so if you have a history its ok then? Is that what your saying? So now your excusing racism are you? Maybe you should think before you type. Your the type of person im refering about in my post.

[kypez]

Originally Posted by gozzaxr6t

Ohhhh so if you have a history its ok then? Is that what your saying? So now your excusing racism are you? Maybe you should think before you type. Your the type of person im refering about in my post.

*You're. Cant take someone serious if they don't have a basic comprehension of grammar.

Anyway, thats not what I was saying. I asked what was the context of the guy having that on his chest.

As with this Goodes saga, context is everything as I've explained on numerous occasion during this thread.

Edit: Might add that I personally don't see the need to have, black, white, yellow, brown, etc Pride slogans or anything tattooed. I think its unnecessary in sport.

[gozzaxr6t]

If you cant take somebody seriously because of a mispelt word than maybe you shouldn't be replying and having a conversation with that person or most of the people on this forum. Its not like everybody sits here proof reading a hundred times. Seriously mate pull your head out of your ...

[Harrison]

[kypez]

Originally Posted by gozzaxr6t

If you cant take somebody seriously because of a mispelt word than maybe you shouldn't be replying and having a conversation with that person or most of the people on this forum. Its not like everybody sits here proof reading a hundred times. Seriously mate pull your head out of your ...

Well given you can't get that right, I fully understand your position to be unable to fulfill a simple comprehension exercise and read what I've said without misquoting or incorrectly paraphrasing my words.

Heck, if you can't get this right with written text, what chance does a bloke like Goodes have with you...

[Road Games]

Do you know why Adam doesn't drink ?
















He can't handle the Booooo......zze

[LG17]

[kypez]

Originally Posted by gozzaxr6t

...........

If attempting to engage in a constructive debate about a topic that is very important to the fabric with which we continue to weave this country with makes me a douche (not sure what a "douch" is), then I'll happily accept being called that

[superyob]

Originally Posted by gozzaxr6t

............

There is no need to insult people. I think Kypez puts forward sound and rational argument, even if I don't entirely agree with some points...