- Oct 7, 2012
- 15,839
- 24,196
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
...
I don't doubt that SOME people boo Goodes due to racism and I believe the majority are sheep but I also believe that some that boo him simply don't like the bloke due to his attitude and the way he plays and I believe those people are more than entitled to boo him or anyone else.
The issue is working out who is who and what I'm asking is how the hell do you do that ???????
Both of us have posted on this subject a bit and I hope you can take the time to read and try and understand this post, as I have read your posts. Please.
MD believe it or not I actually I agree with you on 95% of what you are saying. I've also seen your posts on bullying by Macca of players before and I can see you are vehemently against bullying and also respect the fact you are consistent in your view that because the booing is affecting Goodes mental health, you wouldn't participate in booing. I also 100% agree with you that labelling people racist for booing is not right, but for different reasons.
Where we differ, is actually the key issue in this whole debate IMO.
Just about everyone booing or defending the booing of Goodes say 'many people don't boo Goodes because he's indigenous, they do it for a shed load of other reasons'. However, in the context of racism and how it is defined under human rights law around the world, the motivations of the people booing are not the only question in determining racism. It is the affect of the act on the victim (minority) that needs to be considered as well.
So, the impact the booing has on Goodes needs to be considered. As you say, no one (including Goodes) can tell how much of the booing is racist. But again, as you say some people are booing for racist reasons. But Goodes feels the booing, which has been systematic and unprecedented against one player, and has escalated after he expressed his minority beliefs via the war dance, is in some way racist. It has disturbed him enough to prevent him from working.
The definition of Casual Racism on our government's human rights website makes it clear...
"Unlike overt and intentional acts of racism, casual racism isn’t often intended to cause offence or harm.
Doesn’t the lack of intent mean that casual racism isn't really racism?
One of the obstacles to having an open conversation about race is the tendency to downplay things as not “truly” or “really” racist. This can embolden or encourage prejudice. You don’t need to subscribe to doctrines of racial superiority or incite racial violence to say or do something with racist implications.
Racism is as much about impact as it is about intention. We shouldn’t forget about those who are on the receiving end of discrimination." https://itstopswithme.humanrights.gov.au/what-can-you-do/speak/casual-racism
Now a lot of people then say, well whenever life gets tough for a minority like it has for Goodes, they can then play the race card and that isn't fair.
And yes that is a fair comment. But again, by putting laws in place to protect minorities against discrimination, it can't be any other way (even if it doesn't seem fair). Why? Because no-one in the majority are going to concede they are being racist, so if our laws reflected the majority view, hardly anyone would ever be seen to be racist. It is a trade off that people have put in place to protect the majority against the worst in themselves (or against the sheep like and moronic behaviour you have referred to). These laws were largely put in place around the world after the Holocaust. Decent Germans (people like you and I) were asked why they didn't do something to stop the holocaust, and without fail the general population said 'they didn't know about the gas chambers and it wasn't their fault'. The minorities knew but they didn't have the voice via humans rights laws to say or legally do anything. And no, it isn't just white people who engage in racism and its more extreme version of genocide. Idi Amin in Uganda did it, Pol Pot in Cambodia did. The Serbs did it. Virtually every culture has engaged in racism and even in genocide at some point in their history, so its not an anti-white thing. Anti racism laws are aimed at giving minorities a voice to prevent racism (and in turn prevent racism's most extreme form - genocide).
I know it sounds extreme, to somehow how equate genocide to booing, but its obviously a continuum. Thankfully our society is a long way from genocide. But the fact that Goodes can say the booing is racist behaviour and then have our politicial and AFL leaders back him up (largely due to our human rights laws) means our anti racism laws are working as they should. That means they will protect us 'sheep and morons' from the worst in ourselves, and prevent behaviour discriminating against minorities, and therefore prevent atrocities.
Anyway, while many don't agree with the concept that the victim's (minority) perception of events is key in what determines racism is fair, it is enshrined in our human rights laws (along with a reasonable test to prevent BS claims). And those laws not only protect minorities, they protect us from the worst in ourselves.
Having said that I again agree with you that labelling people racist who boo Goodes (or defend it) is not right. IMO engaging in unwitting racist behaviour does not make someone a racist BUT according to our human right's laws, systematically booing Goodes is racist behaviour.
I hope this makes sense.
Last edited: