Before Darren Lehmann there was.... [Archive]

PrideofSA

20 Jan 2003, 23:30

Originally posted by bunsen burner
You are a tool aren't you?

Called no one in particular? You mean his outburst wasn't related to a certain cricket team that happen to be black?

There is a HUGE difference between calling someone black and a black c***.

This has been explained to you already. What don't you understand? Or is it that you are waaay to mature and intelligent to heed advice from such a humble uneducated person such as myself? After all, you are 19, and we all know that a person's intelligence peaks at 19.

listen dude, it hasn't been explained to me because really it's open to interpretation, it's not black and white you know. Also just coz i'm 19 doesn't mean i know **** all about everything either.

And he didn't actually say it to anyone. he said it to himself in frustation if you need it spelled out to you.

bunsen burner

21 Jan 2003, 06:18

Originally posted by PrideofSA
listen dude, it hasn't been explained to me because really it's open to interpretation, it's not black and white you know. Also just coz i'm 19 doesn't mean i know **** all about everything either.

And he didn't actually say it to anyone. he said it to himself in frustation if you need it spelled out to you. Open to interpretation? Maybe, but you have twisted facts and that is different to interpreting.

You keep leaving the word c*** out. If it didn't make a difference, then why did you leave it out?

Well, he may have said it to no one, but he said it ABOUT someone. And that/those someones were within earshot.

Stop leaving out important facts to twist the truth.

BTW: You do know fa about most things. The reason probably being that you think you know it all already and are unable to listen to to other people. At 19 you should be doing more listening than talking.

PrideofSA

21 Jan 2003, 11:14

actually the Sri Lankans didn't hear and didn't take offence to it. How do we know what they haven't muttered in frustration in a different language too?

PrideofSA

21 Jan 2003, 11:16

also if a black person called me a white c unt, i would be more ****ed off that they called me a c unt than a white one. I would prefer white c unt than fat **** or something. Coz i know i'm white, not ashamed of it, but if i was fat i might not want to be called that.

bunsen burner

21 Jan 2003, 13:08

Originally posted by PrideofSA
also if a black person called me a white c unt, i would be more ****ed off that they called me a c unt than a white one. I would prefer white c unt than fat **** or something. Coz i know i'm white, not ashamed of it, but if i was fat i might not want to be called that. Wake up sunshine, this isn't about you. This is about how black people have suffered through years of percecution, slavery, and discrimination. I think we can safely say that a black person would be much more offended at being called a black C*** than a fat c***. Black people want equality, and being fat or thin has nothing to do with it.

Once again you have shown your complete naivety. When you think you know it all at 19, the future doesn't hold much in store.

Dogwatcher

21 Jan 2003, 13:57

Originally posted by PrideofSA
also if a black person called me a white c unt, i would be more ****ed off that they called me a c unt than a white one. I would prefer white c unt than fat **** or something. Coz i know i'm white, not ashamed of it, but if i was fat i might not want to be called that.

Hang on Bunsen, I can understand where you're coming from with some of your other comments about PrideofSA, but here he's only stating an opinion about his own feelings.
He's not saying it's right. I don't think he has to listen to anyone else when he's talking about his own feelings.
If he wants to be called a white c unt, let him be called that.
BTW Pride are you a fat c unt?

bunsen burner

21 Jan 2003, 14:20

Originally posted by Dogwatcher
Hang on Bunsen, I can understand where you're coming from with some of your other comments about PrideofSA, but here he's only stating an opinion about his own feelings.
He's not saying it's right. I don't think he has to listen to anyone else when he's talking about his own feelings.
If he wants to be called a white c unt, let him be called that.
BTW Pride are you a fat c unt? Okay, I apologise unreservedly. PoSA - you are a fat white c***.

Angus1

21 Jan 2003, 14:33

Originally posted by bunsen burner
You are a tool aren't you?

Called no one in particular? You mean his outburst wasn't related to a certain cricket team that happen to be black?
I think it is pretty obvious that he is saying that actually making a racist remark to thier face is worse then saying it to yourself in frustration.
If Lehmann had actually said it to a Sri Lankan player then it would be considered as bad as Greg Ritchie's.
What Ritchie did and what Lehmann did are entirely different.
Greg Ritchie was offensive towards another human being .
Darren Lehmann was just frustrated and foolish and very regretful.

bunsen burner

21 Jan 2003, 14:57

Originally posted by Angus1
I think it is pretty obvious that he is saying that actually making a racist remark to thier face is worse then saying it to yourself in frustration.
If Lehmann had actually said it to a Sri Lankan player then it would be considered as bad as Greg Ritchie's.
What Ritchie did and what Lehmann did are entirely different.
Greg Ritchie was offensive towards another human being .
Darren Lehmann was just frustrated and foolish and very regretful. That isn't what I'm disagreeing with. PoSA is saying that there is nothing wrong with calling someone 'black'. I agree with this, but Lehmann didn't use the word 'black' on it's own. Adding the word c*** on the end of it gives it an entirely different meaning. PoSA fails to acknowledge this and this is why his is copping a bit.

bunsen burner

21 Jan 2003, 15:05

Originally posted by Angus1
Darren Lehmann was just frustrated and foolish and very regretful. I agree that this was what most probably happened, but that doesn't mean that what he said wasn't a racist comment.

People seem to have taken a black and white (npi) approach with this. There is a school of thought that Lehmann is a racist and then there are a group of people who back him up and say he is not a racist. I don't think anyone could be sure without actually knowing him.

People who believe he is a racist have a much stronger case. Afterall, he did make a racist comment.

People who say that 'Lehmann is no racist' are being ridiculous. How could they possibly know? It seems that many people on this cricket board ignore facts and liklihoods if it is detrimental to one of their favourite player's images.

Probably a better approach would be to say that, 'although Lehmann made a racist comment, he isn't necessarily a racist. He aopolgised and regrets his actions, so there is a chance it was in the heat of the moment'. But to actually argue that he isn't a racist is a bit stupid.

DaveW

21 Jan 2003, 15:50

Why is PrideofSA's age such an issue for bunsenburner? Particularly when bb conceals his DOB from his profile...

bunsen burner

21 Jan 2003, 16:31

Originally posted by DaveW
Why is PrideofSA's age such an issue for bunsenburner? Particularly when bb conceals his DOB from his profile... I'm 32.

I have no problems with 19 year olds and I welcome their opinions, but when you have a 19 year old who is a know all, it's a different story. Especially when this person has very strong opinions that no one else agrees with and no first hand experience. When this person states that it is sad that he is more mature and intelligent than me, it's no wonder I often ridicule him. I wouldn't keep bringing it up, but he makes the same mistakes over and over again.

Zombie

22 Jan 2003, 01:05

Since when did Sri Lankans become 'black'? Or Aboriginals for that matter.

PrideofSA

22 Jan 2003, 01:14

ok, no i'm not fat at all. and secondly, when Bunsen can't get me to agree with him, when stating my views, coz remember this is an opinion, there is no right or wrong, he decides to try and act a lot older and wiser by always refering to me as 19. I guess it makes him feel more knowledgable that he must be right coz he is 32 and i'm 19.
But however because we usually argue over matters that are of an opinion there is no right or wrong perhaps. These are views, so no i do not claim to know everything, if u actually met me you would see that i am far from that, I am just stating me opinon, and maybe learn a thing or 2 aswell. Which trust me I have from big footy.

I've also learnt that when i'm 32 i don't want to be getting drunk every weekend smoking pot and arguing with 19 yr olds and always pointing out their age when i can't get them to agree with myself.
:D

bunsen burner

22 Jan 2003, 05:54

Originally posted by PrideofSA
But however because we usually argue over matters that are of an opinion there is no right or wrong perhaps.
People are welcome to have opinions, but they have to understand that sometimes opinions can be right or wrong (not all the time of course). Someone can have the opinion that 2 + 2 = 5, but they are still wrong.

You're opinion that Lehmann called the Sri Lankans 'black' is wrong. He called them 'black c***s' and you fail to acknowledge this. There is a big difference between calling someone 'black' and a 'black c***'.

Originally posted by PrideofSA
I've also learnt that when i'm 32 i don't want to be getting drunk every weekend smoking pot and arguing with 19 yr olds and always pointing out their age when i can't get them to agree with myself.
:D You're so grown up and mature.

PrideofSA

22 Jan 2003, 09:23

Originally posted by bunsen burner

You're so grown up and mature.

Thankyou, i wish I could say the same for for.;)

Zombie

22 Jan 2003, 12:43

Originally posted by bunsen burner
You're opinion that Lehmann called the Sri Lankans 'black' is wrong. He called them 'black c***s' and you fail to acknowledge this. There is a big difference between calling someone 'black' and a 'black c***'.

Lehmann said 'black c***' not 'black c***s', there is a huge difference. Calling someone a black c***, although offensive, is not a racist remark.

dr nick

22 Jan 2003, 13:50

Originally posted by Zombie
Lehmann said 'black c***' not 'black c***s', there is a huge difference. Calling someone a black c***, although offensive, is not a racist remark.

firstly i believe he said "black c***s"

secondly, how is there a huge difference if he said "black c***"

thirdly, it is both offensive and racist.

Zombie

22 Jan 2003, 14:21

Originally posted by nicko18
firstly i believe he said "black c***s"

secondly, how is there a huge difference if he said "black c***"

thirdly, it is both offensive and racist.

1. From all articles I have read it is stated that he said black c***, no 's' at the end (or a 4th *).

2. Because there is no racism if he was simply calling him a black c***. Racism is prejudice based on race, there is no prejudice in the previous statement, he is not stating that all black people are 'c***s' just the particular person he was referring to who happens to be black (which none of the Sri Lankan team are anyway).

Simply referring to a fat person as a a fat c*** doesn't mean that you are saying that all fat people are c***s, however some fat people may get offended from a statement like this, but that doesn't make it a case of fatism (yes there is such a word)

The same thing applies to race, whilst Lehmanns remarks were derogatory (calling any one a c*** is), it wasn't racist as he wasn't referring to his skin colour as the reason that he was a c***. However adding the 's' on to the end of it starts to cross the line, then it could be presumed that he was referring to all black people as c***s which would make his statement racist.

3. The statement was offensive, yet not racist, you can't just change the definition of racism when it comes to saying something bad about someone. The same case goes for Richie Benaud when he referred to Muralitharin as black magic, as do many AFL commentator to Aboriginal players. Should Richie be suspended from commentating then? Or is it only allowed to refer to a persons race when saying something nice about them?

bunsen burner

22 Jan 2003, 14:43

Originally posted by Zombie
1. From all articles I have read it is stated that he said black c***, no 's' at the end (or a 4th *).

2. Because there is no racism if he was simply calling him a black c***. Racism is prejudice based on race, there is no prejudice in the previous statement, he is not stating that all black people are 'c***s' just the particular person he was referring to who happens to be black (which none of the Sri Lankan team are anyway).

Simply referring to a fat person as a a fat c*** doesn't mean that you are saying that all fat people are c***s, however some fat people may get offended from a statement like this, but that doesn't make it a case of fatism (yes there is such a word)

The same thing applies to race, whilst Lehmanns remarks were derogatory (calling any one a c*** is), it wasn't racist as he wasn't referring to his skin colour as the reason that he was a c***. However adding the 's' on to the end of it starts to cross the line, then it could be presumed that he was referring to all black people as c***s which would make his statement racist.

3. The statement was offensive, yet not racist, you can't just change the definition of racism when it comes to saying something bad about someone. The same case goes for Richie Benaud when he referred to Muralitharin as black magic, as do many AFL commentator to Aboriginal players. Should Richie be suspended from commentating then? Or is it only allowed to refer to a persons race when saying something nice about them? You're being stupid.

There is little difference whether or not the 's' is on the end. One is sigle and one is plural, other than that there is no difference. Calling someone a 'black c***' infers that there is something wrong with that person being black.

Maybe you should go and ask 100 black people if they felt that being called a 'black c***' isn't racist. I doubt you would get one of them to agree with you.

Zombie

22 Jan 2003, 15:10

Originally posted by bunsen burner
You're being stupid.

There is little difference whether or not the 's' is on the end. One is sigle and one is plural, other than that there is no difference. Calling someone a 'black c***' infers that there is something wrong with that person being black.

No it doesn't, you interpret it that way. Like I said I can call someone a black magician but that doesn't mean that there is something right with being black either. It doesn't mean that he is a magician simply because he is black, nor does calling someone a black c*** mean they are a c*** simply because they are black. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe you should go and ask 100 black people if they felt that being called a 'black c***' isn't racist. I doubt you would get one of them to agree with you.

I'm really not going to debate you with your immature hypotheticals of go and ask <<insert group of people here>> and see what they say, next you will be playing the my dad's bigger than yours routine. It is not a case of opinion, it either is racist or it isn't and in this case it isn't. His remark whilst being offensive and including a racial reference was not racist to the defenition of racism.

dr nick

22 Jan 2003, 16:27

Originally posted by Zombie
1. From all articles I have read it is stated that he said black c***, no 's' at the end (or a 4th *).

2. Because there is no racism if he was simply calling him a black c***. Racism is prejudice based on race, there is no prejudice in the previous statement, he is not stating that all black people are 'c***s' just the particular person he was referring to who happens to be black (which none of the Sri Lankan team are anyway).

Simply referring to a fat person as a a fat c*** doesn't mean that you are saying that all fat people are c***s, however some fat people may get offended from a statement like this, but that doesn't make it a case of fatism (yes there is such a word)

The same thing applies to race, whilst Lehmanns remarks were derogatory (calling any one a c*** is), it wasn't racist as he wasn't referring to his skin colour as the reason that he was a c***. However adding the 's' on to the end of it starts to cross the line, then it could be presumed that he was referring to all black people as c***s which would make his statement racist.

3. The statement was offensive, yet not racist, you can't just change the definition of racism when it comes to saying something bad about someone. The same case goes for Richie Benaud when he referred to Muralitharin as black magic, as do many AFL commentator to Aboriginal players. Should Richie be suspended from commentating then? Or is it only allowed to refer to a persons race when saying something nice about them?

its not like that at all and i think you know that. to say the barmy army were fat c***s is not saying that all fat people are c***s, but you are using this logic to twist the fact that if lehmann said the plural, then all black people are c***s.

your third point is blatantly ridiculous. a derogatory remark coupled with a reference to a persons race is racist.

bunsen burner

22 Jan 2003, 16:29

Get your hand off it, idiot. Stop using arguments that are irrelevant. You are plain ignorant if you don't think that calling someone a 'black c***' is racist.

What do you think Spider Everitt was in hot water for? He called Chisolm a 'black c***'. Are you saying Chisolm was wrong by interpreting this as a racist remark? Are you saying that the AFL have it wrong and calling aboriginal players 'black c***s' is not racist?

You are making a tool of yourself.

Jars458

22 Jan 2003, 16:36

Originally posted by bunsen burner

You are making a tool of yourself.

Its Zombie

That's his job.

Its clearly racist, if only because dark skinned people believe it to be.

Zombie

23 Jan 2003, 01:45

Originally posted by nicko18

your third point is blatantly ridiculous. a derogatory remark coupled with a reference to a persons race is racist.

You seem to have an inability to understand the meaning of racism, don't worry you are not alone, the majority of society have been miseducated on the matter.

Racism:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Calling someone a black c*** obviously comes nowhere near these parameters of the definition of racism.

I'll give you another example, I have a mate who is on the heavy side, he also happens to be Italian, quite often I'll call him a fat wog, sometimes in jest, other times in anger. This is not a racist remark, as I am not suggesting that all Italians are fat nor am I suggesting that all fat people are Italians. The same thing applies to calling someone a black c***, as you are not stating that a person is a c*** because they are black simply that they are black person who happens to be a c***.

You cannot suggest that calling someone a 'black magician' is acceptable whilst calling someone a 'black c***' is a racist remark. It is blatantly hypocritical to suggest that praising someone based on race is OK yet to denigrate them based on race is unacceptable, a point which you cannot possibly refute and is why you chose to ignore it.

It is not up to opinion, you could ask every single person whom has ever been called a 'black c***' before if they felt that the remark was racist and they could all answer 'yes' and it wouldn't make a little bit of difference. They would all be wrong, as are you.

I'm not debating the fact that Lehmann's remarks were highly offensive, nor am I debating the fact that Lehmann contravened the ICC's racial vilification act, as he clearly did and deserved his punishment for doing so.

The point that I am debating is that the remark was racist, it wasn't. The definition of racism and what type of remark is racist is clearly defined, to which 'black c***' does not fall into, no matter what your opinion of the remark, no matter what other people feel towards the remark. Plainly and simply the remark is not racist.

Zombie

23 Jan 2003, 01:59

Originally posted by Jars458
Its Zombie

That's his job.

Its clearly racist, if only because dark skinned people believe it to be.

See the above post.

Your final remark is a racist one, calling someone a black c*** is not. You have stated that if dark skinned people believe something to be racist, then it is.

Discrimination based on race

By making this remark you clearly discriminate against non dark skinned people by suggesting that only dark skinned people can decide on what is and isn't racist.

You don't see it this way as you see it as being kind to people of other races and being compassionate to their feelings but that doesn't make it alright, your remark is racist.

If I take your sentence and replace certain words:

"Its clearly not racist, if only because white people believe it not to be."

then it becomes a clearly racist remark, the only difference between that statement and yours is that yours is more socially acceptable, yet is exactly the same, both are racist.

Dark skinned people, nor people of any individual race for that matter, do not decided what the definition of racism is, even if the remarks in question are directed to a person of that particular race.

Zombie

23 Jan 2003, 02:22

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Get your hand off it, idiot. Stop using arguments that are irrelevant. You are plain ignorant if you don't think that calling someone a 'black c***' is racist.

What do you think Spider Everitt was in hot water for? He called Chisolm a 'black c***'. Are you saying Chisolm was wrong by interpreting this as a racist remark? Are you saying that the AFL have it wrong and calling aboriginal players 'black c***s' is not racist?

You are making a tool of yourself.

What arguments are irrelevant? The one, and only, argument that holds any weight when defining whether a statement is racist or not is the comparison of the definition of the term 'racist' with the remark in question as i have done in previous posts. Peoples opinions or feelings, yours or the person who the comment was made about hold no weight in deciding whether the comment was racist or not.

Spider Everitt was in hot water for contravening an AFL anti racial vilification act.
Did his comment contravene the act? Yes.
Was it racist? No.
Was Chisolm wrong for interpreting it as a racist remark? Yes, as were you.

The AFL do not have it wrong as the AFL never claimed it was a racist remark, they charged him with racially vilifying a player not of making racist comments.

No my friend you are the one who is ignorant, you would prefer to ignore the facts and defintions of the statements in question and rather go along with the angry mob mentality of shoot first ask questions later. Not that it is a surprise coming from you, clearly you are one who is easily led into things guiding from your previous rants with PoSA.

bunsen burner

23 Jan 2003, 05:42

Originally posted by Zombie
What arguments are irrelevant? Black Magician. The English language is not black and white as you seem to think it is. Your logic is like saying 'lather' and 'bather' must be pronounced the same. The English language just isn't that simple. Your understanding of it leaves something to be desired.

Originally posted by Zombie

The AFL do not have it wrong as the AFL never claimed it was a racist remark, they charged him with racially vilifying a player not of making racist comments.So how did he racially villify Chisolm then if it wasn't from his comments? I would say that Everitt racially villified Chisolm by making those comments, which would make those comments racist.

Question: If 'black c***' isn't a racist remark, then for what reason did Lehmann or Everitt have to even mention the word black?

bunsen burner

23 Jan 2003, 05:52

Originally posted by Zombie
You seem to have an inability to understand the meaning of racism, don't worry you are not alone, the majority of society have been miseducated on the matter.

Racism:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Calling someone a black c*** obviously comes nowhere near these parameters of the definition of racism.

Okay, lets have a look at the Everitt scenario. Something has gone on between them. Everitt runs up and calls him a 'black c***' in an agressive manner. There is no question that Everitt aimed to say something mean to Chisolm. He called him a 'black c***' as if there is something wrong with it. When you have an issue with someone, you don't go up and say nice things to them. You say stuff that is either designed to offend them or you tell them what is wrong with them. And the remark is clearly inferring that the person in question is a lesser being because of their blackness.

It seems you don't know how to interpret English properly.

dr nick

23 Jan 2003, 06:39

you seem to be the one unable to grasp what racism is. did you ever stop to think why you are the only one who believes that "black c***" is not racist??? is it because you are wrong??

calling someone a fat wog is not derogatory if it is done in jest. if it is said with spite, like lehmanns was, it would be racist.

i think you need to re-read the first and second point under your definition of racism and understand why lehmanns remarks fall under that category. or do you just think the ICC and all the other QC's dont know what racism is?? :rolleyes:

dr nick

23 Jan 2003, 06:53

Originally posted by Zombie

You cannot suggest that calling someone a 'black magician' is acceptable whilst calling someone a 'black c***' is a racist remark. It is blatantly hypocritical to suggest that praising someone based on race is OK yet to denigrate them based on race is unacceptable, a point which you cannot possibly refute and is why you chose to ignore it.

are you just using proposterous arguments because you are digging yourself into a hole?

of course calling someone a black magician is acceptable, it is complementary. calling someone a black c*** is not, and i would think you are among the extreme minority who cant see the difference.

it's just like calling my mother an angel is acceptable, but calling her a whore would not be.

so, it is ok to praise someone and not ok to denigrate them. likewise, it is ok to praise based on race but not ok to denigrate based on race.

i suppose if i was to call someone "an ugly black piece of s*** who looks more ape-like than human" is not racist because it is not a blanket statement labelling all black people this way. you really are the one who does not have the ability to understand what racism is. did they skip that at school?

bunsen burner

23 Jan 2003, 07:21

zombie = eeediot!

bunsen burner

23 Jan 2003, 07:46

Before Darren Lehmann there was....Zombie.

Jars458

23 Jan 2003, 08:02

Originally posted by Zombie
See the above post.

By making this remark you clearly discriminate against non dark skinned people by suggesting that only dark skinned people can decide on what is and isn't racist.

You

No you idiot

What I meant was that racism, the same as sexual harrasment is about the feelings of the person who has been insulted

How can a white person say whehter being called a black c is racist or not

The only one who can say - is the person who has been called it.

Its just a wild theory, but I gues most dark skinned people would find that term to be racist.

But if it was said to someone that didn't find it to be racism - then it wouldn't be racist.

Zombie

23 Jan 2003, 13:00

Originally posted by Jars458
No you idiot

What I meant was that racism, the same as sexual harrasment is about the feelings of the person who has been insulted

How can a white person say whehter being called a black c is racist or not

The only one who can say - is the person who has been called it.

Its just a wild theory, but I gues most dark skinned people would find that term to be racist.

But if it was said to someone that didn't find it to be racism - then it wouldn't be racist.

You just don't get it do you you fool? It is not up to debate, it is not in question, I am telling you it is NOT RACIST. I couldn't care less if every single dark skinned person found it racist, it still doesn't make it so. Individuals do not decide what is an isn't racist due to how they feel about certain comments, comments are either racist or not based on whether their contents discriminates against a particular race or religion.

Racism is a term that is used to describe the singleling out of people based on race or religion, which your theory that because people are dark skinned they can determine what is and isn't racist is clearly a form of.

Like I said, you clearly don't understand the meaning of racism, even though it is clearly defined for you you still seem to want to move the goal posts and include any type of racial reference to your belief of what is and isn't racism.

Zombie

23 Jan 2003, 13:31

Originally posted by nicko18
are you just using proposterous arguments because you are digging yourself into a hole?

of course calling someone a black magician is acceptable, it is complementary. calling someone a black c*** is not, and i would think you are among the extreme minority who cant see the difference.

it's just like calling my mother an angel is acceptable, but calling her a whore would not be.

so, it is ok to praise someone and not ok to denigrate them. likewise, it is ok to praise based on race but not ok to denigrate based on race.

i suppose if i was to call someone "an ugly black piece of s*** who looks more ape-like than human" is not racist because it is not a blanket statement labelling all black people this way. you really are the one who does not have the ability to understand what racism is. did they skip that at school?

OK, this is how you can have it, one way or the other, but you can't have both.

Either:

a) calling someone a black magician is not racist because it is not singeling out their skin colour as the reason they are a magician but just simply mentioning it to describe the person. If that is so then calling someone a black c*** must also be not racist as you must use the same theory that they are not being singled out based on race but are simply mentioning it to describe the person.

or

b) calling someone a black magician is racist because it is alluding to the fact that their skin colour is the only reason that they are a magician, subsequently calling someone a black c*** would also be racist.

One or the other. You can't have it both ways simply because one is saying something nice and the other is saying something nasty, they are either both discriminating based on race or neither.

Your mother/whore scenario is completely irrelevant, if your mother was a prostitute then it would be quite acceptable to call her a whore. I wouldn't be suggesting that all mothers are whores, just that mother.

Your final statement would not be racist, likewise with calling someone a 'black c***' you are not saying that all black people are ugly and look like apes you are just saying that one individual is. Is it not possible for a human to resemble an ape? of course it is, therefore is it not possible for a black person to resemble an ape? of course it is again, but no where in that comment are you suggesting that all black people look like apes.

School is the main reason that people like yourself and Jars and BB have been miseducated about what does and doesn't constitute racism. Racial vilification and racial slurs do not neccersarily constitute racism, the proof is in the newspapers articles.

You will not see any newspaper that will dare suggest Lehmann made racist remarks, they will all either suggest he made a racial slur or contravened the ICC's racial vilification act. Why? because if they did then Lehmann could potentially sue them for defamation because his remarks were not racist.

Racism and racial vilification are two very different things, if you read the ICC's racial vilification act you will see that the act is very much broader than racism, it includes any race mentioned slurs of any kind. This is done because it is socially not acceptable to make these kind of statements as it severely hurts peoples feelings, but to suggest that it is anywhere near racism is lunacy.

Racism is a terrible, terrible plague on society and peoples racist attitudes need to be erradicated but to suggest that Lehmann's comments were racist is to really lessen the seriousness of racism which is reserved for the likes of race slavery and racial segregation and casting.

bunsen burner

23 Jan 2003, 13:36

Zombie: you are a fool.

I noticed that you conveniently avoided my earlier question. Funny how people who are wrong duck questions that expose flaws in their logic. I will ask you once more:

Question: If 'black c***' isn't a racist remark, then for what reason did Lehmann or Everitt have to even mention the word black?

Zombie

23 Jan 2003, 13:40

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Okay, lets have a look at the Everitt scenario. Something has gone on between them. Everitt runs up and calls him a 'black c***' in an agressive manner. There is no question that Everitt aimed to say something mean to Chisolm. He called him a 'black c***' as if there is something wrong with it. When you have an issue with someone, you don't go up and say nice things to them. You say stuff that is either designed to offend them or you tell them what is wrong with them. And the remark is clearly inferring that the person in question is a lesser being because of their blackness.

It seems you don't know how to interpret English properly.

First racism and racial vilification are completely different issues, if you read the AFL or ICC racial vilification acts you would see that they take into account racism and then also expand on racism to include many other things including slurs which mentions race. i hope that answer your previous question of why he was charged with racial vilification and yet those remarks are not racist.

If you call someone a black c*** are you not inferring that they are a lesser being because they are a c***? Not because they are black?

OK I'll take nicko's example of calling a mother a whore, the remark is referring that the mother is a lesser being not because she is a mother but because she is a whore, the same applies to the 'black c***' comment.

Zombie

23 Jan 2003, 13:50

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Zombie: you are a fool.

I noticed that you conveniently avoided my earlier question. Funny how people who are wrong duck questions that expose flaws in their logic. I will ask you once more:

Question: If 'black c***' isn't a racist remark, then for what reason did Lehmann or Everitt have to even mention the word black?

Have I answered that in my previous post? I have not avoided your question at all, I have simply replied to other posts first.

If I haven't answered it then I will now. Lehmann or Everitt had no reason to mention the word 'black', but that doesn't make it racist. I can't tell you what they were thinking at the time, no one can, so all we can do is take their comments and judge those comments.

Putting 'black' before it only describes what colour the skin of the person who is being called a c*** is. That is not unusual, take the comment 'white trash' for example, it refers to the skin colour of a person but it is not a racist remark because all it does is simply describes the persons race that are being refered to as 'trash'. It is not saying that all white people are trash or that only white people can be trash it simply describes the colour of the skin of someone you are referring to.

Describing people based on skin colour is not racist, we do it all the time.

Jars458

23 Jan 2003, 15:46

Originally posted by Zombie
You just don't get it do you you fool? It is not up to debate, it is not in question, I am telling you it is NOT RACIST. I couldn't care less if every single dark skinned person found it racist, it still doesn't make it so. Individuals do not decide what is an isn't racist due to how they feel about certain comments, comments are either racist or not based on whether their contents discriminates against a particular race or religion.

Racism is a term that is used to describe the singleling out of people based on race or religion, which your theory that because people are dark skinned they can determine what is and isn't racist is clearly a form of.

Like I said, you clearly don't understand the meaning of racism, even though it is clearly defined for you you still seem to want to move the goal posts and include any type of racial reference to your belief of what is and isn't racism.

You are more stupid than I thought.

black ****

means you are a **** because you are black

=racism

can I make it any clearer for you.

Thousands of years or opression contricute to why this phrase is racist.

Any reason do you think, that you seem to be the only one of this view?????????????

Go and have a lie down.

Zombie

23 Jan 2003, 16:11

Originally posted by Jars458
You are more stupid than I thought.

black ****

means you are a **** because you are black

=racism

can I make it any clearer for you.

Thousands of years or opression contricute to why this phrase is racist.

Any reason do you think, that you seem to be the only one of this view?????????????

Go and have a lie down.

why does the term black c*** instantaneously mean you are a c*** because you are black???

white trash - doesn't mean you are trash because you are white
black magician - doesn't mean you are a magician because you are black
fat c*** - doesn't mean you are a c*** because you are fat.

yet somehow all these are different?

Jars, you are uneducated and wrong. It could be millions of years of oppression and it wouldn't make a tiny bit of difference that the statement is not racist.

Like I've said before, if you want to debate the fact that the term black c*** was meant to imply that he meant 'all black people are c***s then fair enough but if you are going to blab on about irrelevant rubbish such as years of oppression and how the person feels about the comment then you can do it on your own as it has nothing to do with the meaning of racism.

Unless you can prove that he meant 'all black people are c***s', which you can't, then you can't classify the statement as racist, it is as simple as that.

bunsen burner

23 Jan 2003, 17:53

Zombie = dumb c***.

Zombie

23 Jan 2003, 18:20

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Zombie = dumb c***.

Are you suggesting all people without the power of speech are c***s?

BB = immature c***

no i'm not suggesting that all immature people are c***s, just you. I'll let you get back to your dope smoking now you immature little boy, I can now understand why trying to teach you anything is impossible, your brain is frazzled.

bunsen burner

23 Jan 2003, 18:44

Originally posted by Zombie
Are you suggesting all people without the power of speech are c***s?

BB = immature c***

no i'm not suggesting that all immature people are c***s, just you. I'll let you get back to your dope smoking now you immature little boy, I can now understand why trying to teach you anything is impossible, your brain is frazzled. My brain, learning, and maturity levels are fine thanks champ.

RogerC

23 Jan 2003, 18:51

I think the problem here is that you people just aren't listening to each other. Zombie is making interesting points, and there are worthwhile counter-arguments from Bunsen Burner, Jars, Nicko etc., but it's all getting swept away in a torrent of abuse.

The English language is the most fluent and changable of all languages, which is why it is the universal language. It also contains a lot of its meaning in connotation and intention, which you simply can't lay down hard and fast rules for.

Strictly defined, racism (or racialism if you want to be picky - racism means something else entirely) means the belief that some races have different characteristics to others, and that from this you can infer that some races are superior to others.

And strictly speaking, you can't make any such racist case out of Lehmann's comments. So Zombie is right - although I can't see where is going with this line of thought. It doesn't exonerate Lehmann's actions one iota; it merely puts them in a sort of context.

The confusion here comes from some people interpreting 'racist' in a wider context. The belief that if you insult someone, and you tack on an adjective referring to their skin colour (or race or creed etc), you are linking the two concepts - 'black' and '****', for instance. To my mind it fits a broad concept of racism.

The term "black magician" can be defined as a racist comment. But it is classified as a positive racism - the belief that a black sportsman has superior talents to a white sportsman - in some areas. It's a fine line, but easy to get the gist of; the comment does not directly denigrate white people, merely implies an extra talent in black people.

Once we've made that connection, it's easy to make the case that 'black ****' is racist. This time in a derogatory fashion. You've juxtaposed the two words, and therefore forged a link between them. ie: "he's not just a ****, he's a Black **** - his blackness defines his ****iness - white people may be ****s, but we're above being that particular kind of **** that only black people can be". That's the broad implication of the remark.

Same with 'white trash'; it doesn't imply that one is trash because one is white. It's saying that there is a particular type of trash that only white people can be. It carries less weight as an insult because whites don't have the history of oppression that blacks do. But it is still a racist remark.

The level of the offense is tied up in power structures, in history, in all sorts of intangibles. In these cases it's best to trust common sense and your instinct for what is hurtful.

Having said that, there's no point trying to prove that Lehmann's remark was racist, because according to the strict meaning of the word, it wasn't. It was a slur with a racial subtext.

Port01

23 Jan 2003, 19:36

Originally posted by Jars458
Thousands of years or opression contricute to why this phrase is racist.

Thousands of years is taking it a bit far ;)

Few of hundred yes, as far as caucasian dominance goes.

Before that every race was oppressed by and oppressed every race nearby interchangeably.

All humans are inherently tribal, there would have to be a better solution than sweeping the whole thing under the carpet through threats of punishment.

I personally wouldn't judge an individuals worth by his/her race, but ill be ****ed if im not going to have a go at a bunch of people acting completely within the stereotype of their race ie japanese taking photos, young asians dressing in american sports gear and loitering, west indians smoking pot, sri lankans chucking and bowling slow overrates. Probably makes me racist according to PC rules, but no more than the person who thinks it and keeps their mouth shut.

Flame away ;)

bunsen burner

23 Jan 2003, 19:37

Originally posted by RogerC

The English language is the most fluent and changable of all languages, which is why it is the universal language. It also contains a lot of its meaning in connotation and intention, which you simply can't lay down hard and fast rules for.I'm glad someone pointed out the the English language isn't black and white. Dictionaries have different definitions too.

Society in this case holds the upper hand over the technicalities of a definition in ONE dictionary. 99.99% of people consider that to be a racist comment. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.

Originally posted by RogerC

And strictly speaking, you can't make any such racist case out of Lehmann's comments. So Zombie is right - although I can't see where is going with this line of thought. It doesn't exonerate Lehmann's actions one iota; it merely puts them in a sort of context.So you think Lehmann and Everitt would be successful if they lodged a supreme court challenge based on a dictionary definition? I'm sorry, but who said the dictionary is be all, end all? Regardless of what a dictionary says, it has been communicated to the masses that such remarks are considered as racist.

If Zombie is going down the technical path for the sake of an argument, then he is just be a tool.

Originally posted by RogerC

The confusion here comes from some people interpreting 'racist' in a wider context. The belief that if you insult someone, and you tack on an adjective referring to their skin colour (or race or creed etc), you are linking the two concepts - 'black' and '****', for instance. To my mind it fits a broad concept of racism.
Some people? Try most people. In this day and age, the broader concept of racism is current and very relevant.

Having said that, there's no point trying to prove that Lehmann's remark was racist, because according to the strict meaning of the word, it wasn't. It was a slur with a racial subtext.
We're not talking about the 'strict meaning of the word'. We're talking about whether that is a racist comment in today's society.

And the answer is YES.

skilts

23 Jan 2003, 22:25

The Bee Gees had it right.

"It's only words."

I would call what the KKK have done to blacks in the south of America racist, or racialist. Dragging a bloke behind a truck 'til he's dead is racist, if it's done solely on the basis that he's a '******', rather than because you're just a common or garden psychopath.

Telling someone he's a black ***t is indicative of having lost the argument, as seems to have been the case with Lehmann

Richmondfan#1

23 Jan 2003, 23:21

I'm getting the feeling this thread should belong to the Society & Culture board. :D

But keep it coming. Most of the points raised here have been fairly inventive and intelligent.

PrideofSA

23 Jan 2003, 23:58

It was a slur with a racial subtext, someone has hit the nail on the head.

Zombie

24 Jan 2003, 00:54

Originally posted by RogerC
I think the problem here is that you people just aren't listening to each other. Zombie is making interesting points, and there are worthwhile counter-arguments from Bunsen Burner, Jars, Nicko etc., but it's all getting swept away in a torrent of abuse.

The English language is the most fluent and changable of all languages, which is why it is the universal language. It also contains a lot of its meaning in connotation and intention, which you simply can't lay down hard and fast rules for.

Strictly defined, racism (or racialism if you want to be picky - racism means something else entirely) means the belief that some races have different characteristics to others, and that from this you can infer that some races are superior to others.

And strictly speaking, you can't make any such racist case out of Lehmann's comments. So Zombie is right - although I can't see where is going with this line of thought. It doesn't exonerate Lehmann's actions one iota; it merely puts them in a sort of context.

The confusion here comes from some people interpreting 'racist' in a wider context. The belief that if you insult someone, and you tack on an adjective referring to their skin colour (or race or creed etc), you are linking the two concepts - 'black' and '****', for instance. To my mind it fits a broad concept of racism.

The term "black magician" can be defined as a racist comment. But it is classified as a positive racism - the belief that a black sportsman has superior talents to a white sportsman - in some areas. It's a fine line, but easy to get the gist of; the comment does not directly denigrate white people, merely implies an extra talent in black people.

Once we've made that connection, it's easy to make the case that 'black ****' is racist. This time in a derogatory fashion. You've juxtaposed the two words, and therefore forged a link between them. ie: "he's not just a ****, he's a Black **** - his blackness defines his ****iness - white people may be ****s, but we're above being that particular kind of **** that only black people can be". That's the broad implication of the remark.

Same with 'white trash'; it doesn't imply that one is trash because one is white. It's saying that there is a particular type of trash that only white people can be. It carries less weight as an insult because whites don't have the history of oppression that blacks do. But it is still a racist remark.

The level of the offense is tied up in power structures, in history, in all sorts of intangibles. In these cases it's best to trust common sense and your instinct for what is hurtful.

Having said that, there's no point trying to prove that Lehmann's remark was racist, because according to the strict meaning of the word, it wasn't. It was a slur with a racial subtext.

A very well reasoned passage, you have raised some important points that I was trying to convey. Your final statement was the main thrust of my argument, I was making this point because a clear distinction needs to be made between what is racist and what is a racially motivated slur.

I have made it clear that I don't condone what Lehmann said but to clump it together with the likes of slavery and the KKK under the title of racism is just flat out unfair to Lehmann.

Jars458

24 Jan 2003, 07:34

Originally posted by Zombie

Jars, you are uneducated and wrong. It could be millions of years of oppression and it wouldn't make a tiny bit of difference that the statement is not racist.

Like I've said before, if you want to debate the fact that the term black c*** was meant to imply that he meant 'all black people are c***s then fair enough but if you are going to blab on about irrelevant rubbish such as years of oppression and how the person feels about the comment then you can do it on your own as it has nothing to do with the meaning of racism.

Unless you can prove that he meant 'all black people are c***s', which you can't, then you can't classify the statement as racist, it is as simple as that.

You are stupid and ignorant.

Why is "racism" wrong?

Because it offends people.

being called a black c unt offends black people as they see it as a racial slur.

You are saying a dictionary definition is more important that what the victim feels as a result of the attack.

You are wrong.

I am quite well educated thank you, which has included racial disrimiation training.

I find it highly laughable that you think you know better than a black person what racism is to them.

Stop hinding behind techincal definitions and words and get with what its really about

human emotions and feelings.

bunsen burner

24 Jan 2003, 07:34

Originally posted by Zombie

I have made it clear that I don't condone what Lehmann said but to clump it together with the likes of slavery and the KKK under the title of racism is just flat out unfair to Lehmann. No one is suggesting it is on the same level. Racist slur or racist context, the point most people were making is that it falls under the broad category of racism. All racism isn't the same, there are different types and different levels of it. Although this is of the lighter variety, it still falls under racism.

Zombie

24 Jan 2003, 13:38

Originally posted by bunsen burner
No one is suggesting it is on the same level. Racist slur or racist context, the point most people were making is that it falls under the broad category of racism. All racism isn't the same, there are different types and different levels of it. Although this is of the lighter variety, it still falls under racism.

No, it doesn't. You still don't seem to understand what racism is and probably never will so we'll leave it there. The sad thing is there are so many people out there preaching this rubbish and miseducating society.

Zombie

24 Jan 2003, 13:51

Originally posted by Jars458
You are stupid and ignorant.

Why is "racism" wrong?

Because it offends people.

Incorrect, racism discriminates against people of a certain race, this may be positively or negatively and does not neccesarily offend.

being called a black c unt offends black people as they see it as a racial slur.

Correct, i am not questioning that fact.

You are saying a dictionary definition is more important that what the victim feels as a result of the attack.

No I am stating that defining a comment as something it isn't is just wrong. A victim could feel sexually assaulted from a sexually harassing comment, but that doesn't make it rape.

I find it highly laughable that you think you know better than a black person what racism is to them.

It doesn't matter what colour your skin is, don't you realise? It is not about skin colour, particular races don't get to decide what is and isn't racist according to them simply because they are of that skin colour. They do however get to voice their opinion on what they find racially offensive and when people of a particular race say they find certain comments racially offensive then society adopts these type of comments as unacceptable and are the reason vilification acts are introduced into sport.

Stop hinding behind techincal definitions and words and get with what its really about

human emotions and feelings.

Like I said, human emotions and feelings are important and offending people with race based slurs is unacceptable in society today but to suggest that such comments are any way linked to racism is incorrect, and you know it.

dr nick

24 Jan 2003, 15:05

you aren't a darren lehmann fan by any chance are u zombie??

bunsen burner

24 Jan 2003, 15:38

Originally posted by Zombie
No, it doesn't. You still don't seem to understand what racism is and probably never will so we'll leave it there. The sad thing is there are so many people out there preaching this rubbish and miseducating society. It isn't me who doesn't understand. It is you with your rigid view of what racism is, as well as your reluctance to change your views in line with the times.

It also seems you have started an argument over a few minor technicalities. In today's society that is considered a racist comment. So be it. I think you may need some therapy to get over this one.

RogerC

24 Jan 2003, 15:41

Thanks Bunsen Burner, for missing my point completely.

I was agreeing with you. I was pointing out that Zombie's - entirely correct, as laid out in dictionaries and enforced by logic - distinction between racial slurs and racism itself, is of little practical use when you look at Lehmann's case.

You chose the hard-line. Which is commendable, but it's also making an issue out of what is basically nothing. Try asking Zombie first of all whether he thought Lehmann's action was wrong, and then ask him whether he thought it contained racial overtones. I think you'll find you're both pretty much in agreement there.

Then ask yourself whether it's worse to casually slag off someone of another race through ignorance, or to truly believe that the race in question is inferior to yours.

If you truly think the two are indistinguishable (and that is the distinction Zombie is pointing out), then what you're saying is that anyone who makes a racist remark IS a racist. Because racism is a belief - that is how it is defined. It's not a dumb, casual, smart-arse comment. It's a way of constructing the world.

And incidentally, you are just as much at fault as Zombie with the whole "dictionary definition" stuff. You are trying to force a meaning for the word racism that fits with your understanding of the concept. And to reject his definition of it. The definition, as I see it, is the most important thing to you.