- Banned
- #51
My brain, learning, and maturity levels are fine thanks champ.
Before Darren Lehmann there was....
- Thread starter wagstaff
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2001
- Posts
- 1,949
- Reaction score
- 20
- Location
- Alphington
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Cricket
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.
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
Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Riley Bonner Player Sponsor 2016
Port Adelaide - Brendon Ah Chee Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014
Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013
Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor
Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
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
- Banned
- #54
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.
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.
Some people? Try most people. In this day and age, the broader concept of racism is current and very relevant.
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.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
- Posts
- 17,797
- Reaction score
- 6,871
- Location
- South-West Gippsland
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
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
"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
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Posts
- 5,627
- Reaction score
- 16
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I'm getting the feeling this thread should belong to the Society & Culture board. 
But keep it coming. Most of the points raised here have been fairly inventive and intelligent.
But keep it coming. Most of the points raised here have been fairly inventive and intelligent.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Posts
- 3,495
- Reaction score
- 245
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
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.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2001
- Posts
- 28,335
- Reaction score
- 11,347
- Location
- Adelaide Oval / Anfield
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
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.
- Banned
- #60
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.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Posts
- 3,495
- Reaction score
- 245
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
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.
you aren't a darren lehmann fan by any chance are u zombie??
- Banned
- #64
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.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2001
- Posts
- 1,949
- Reaction score
- 20
- Location
- Alphington
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Cricket
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.
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.
- Banned
- #67
Whatever. At the end of the day, you will absolutely not convince me that those comments aren't racist. I'm not interested in all of Zombies ridiculous logics. I do believe that in his initial two posts he stated that they weren't racist and gave his reasons. After that he seems to have strayed and started to get into stuff that just isn't really important.
To say it isn't racist but has a racist subtext is just splitting hairs and seems like a bit of a get out clause to me. Black people think it's racist, most white people consider it racist - that's enough for me.
fact: darren lehmann said black c***s, that is coming from the first hand news source Reuters. other news derivatives who get their references from reuters have used variations such as "black c***" and "black b*stard", this includes baggygreen, News Ltd and Fairfax papers.
so even you should agree zombie that his comments were racist.
so even you should agree zombie that his comments were racist.
