***Official*** Road to the 2015 Cricket World Cup

[Adders]

Yes AFAIC.

It's by no means discriminatory or prejudiced (which a lot of people argue is necessary for it to be 'racism') in an overt sense, but you are making a comment or judgement on the basis of their race. There's no reason to foreground race in the comment; if a player of white Australian took that mark, there's nothing less magical about it. If an Italian-Australian took it, you wouldn't think twice -- non-English European immigrants are considered as 'white' these days (notice how there's significantly less usage of 'wog' these days). So why do we have to point out the blackness of the player taking the mark, when it has nothing at all to do with their ability to take said mark?

I also mentioned that the hypothetical player was "indigenous" in my post.........that was making a comment on his race and I don't see how stating a fact is in anyway derogatory. Mate if I'd have got all puffed up every time someone called me a POM I reckon I'd have lasted a day in this country.

I've also been called a Pommy **** and a Pommy poofter...........now that is where the line is crossed because it is clearly designed to be derogatory. But if I ever did anything outstanding in any sport and someone shouted out "Pommy Magic" I'd be wrapped.......it's a compliment for heavens sakes.

 

[sledger]

Why is referring to race or nationality in any way necessary, whether you are giving a compliment or not?

 

[Spikey]

gee who invited the white thought police to our board

 

[Flem274*]

Congratulations to smali on another successful derail.

 

[sledger]

gee who invited the white thought police to our board

Some cracker.

 

[Adders]

Why is referring to race or nationality in any way necessary, whether you are giving a compliment or not?

Why does it have to be a taboo subject and ignored or tip toed around??

I've lived in Australia for over 20 years, but I'm proud to be English and I'm proud of my heritage........I have 6 nieces and nephews here, and honestly I don't even know if they know my name, I'm just POM or Uncle POM to them.........and I like it.

Look this political correct business is all very well and good, but IMO if you want to avoid racism and have multicultural societies that gel and live in harmony, the answer is not to ignore our differences and pretend they don't exist.......it is to acknowledge them and then embrace them.

Going back to the indigenous footy player, anyone that has watched a bit of AFL knows that some of these players have an ability that can border on the freakish........they can just pull **** out of the bag that just makes you go "wow" My black magic comment is nothing but admiration and a compliment. If understanding that indigenous Australians are naturally athletic and have a genius for ball sports is wrong.........then I'll stay being wring I think.

 

[Adders]

Congratulations to smali on another successful derail.

Na ah, your not getting away with pulling that........the derail is firmly with Hurricane.

 

[sledger]

Na ah, your not getting away with pulling that........the derail is firmly with Hurricane.

It really isn't.

 

[sledger]

Going back to the indigenous footy player, anyone that has watched a bit of AFL knows that some of these players have an ability that can border on the freakish........they can just pull **** out of the bag that just makes you go "wow" My black magic comment is nothing but admiration and a compliment. If understanding that indigenous Australians are naturally athletic and have a genius for ball sports is wrong.........then I'll stay being wring I think.

It's also deeply condescending.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I don't know why people are bagging on Hurricane this much tbh... I personally didn't think what smali said was offensive, per se, but can see why someone else could find it unacceptable. Don't know why people have had to make long posts to explain why it wasn't a smart thing to say in a public forum, either. Don't think he meant any offense, but it was just silly. You can't say Hurricane wasn wrong to get offended, at all.

 

[Adders]

It's also deeply condescending.

Bollocks.

 

[sledger]

Bollocks.

Not unlike your posting, champ. If you can't understand precisely why people harbour sensitivities over issues of race and ethnicity then...well, it evinces a shocking ignorance of the types of issues that have beset polite society over course of the last century.

 

[Adders]

Not unlike your posting, champ. If you can't understand precisely why people harbour sensitivities over issues of race and ethnicity then...well, it evinces a shocking ignorance of the types of issues that have beset polite society over course of the last century.

I haven't seen half a dozen posts just today talking about the blocking my posts fella........you might think you're a great poster but I can assure you that does't appear to be the consensus.

I've gone to lengths in a few posts in here to explain my thought process, all you have dished up is one liners of gash that tell us nothing of your views.........and you're telling me I'm ignorant?? GTFO.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Racism isn't necessarily down to discrimination and prejudice though; whenever you're treating a group of people solely due to their ethnicity ("The West Indies are dark horses, d'ya get it, dark horses? It's because they're black hahahahahahahahaha I'm so funny and a little bit edgy . Right guys? Right?"), you're reducing them down to a solitary characteristic -- and a solitary characteristic that has historically been stigmatised and used to justify terrible human rights abuses, at that.

You're basically drawing a commonality between them over their lack of 'whiteness' (given notions of 'white' are far more strongly entrenched than notions of 'black'). Not their shared West Indian heritage. Not their passion for cricket. Their skin colour.

Not to mention calling them 'dark horses' just because they're not white implicitly suggests that their blackness is directly correlated to the longer odds of them winning the World Cup. "They're dark horses because they're black". Well mate, a dark horse has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with not being good enough to be in the bookies' favourites to win, so you're making a judgement on their cricket playing ability just because it fits with your ****ty joke. That's arguably even more offensive than the joke itself, IMO.

I agree with this. But then, we generally call George Headly "The Black Bradman", don't we? And it's generally seen as a title of admiration. Pele was called The Black Pearl, Zico, the White Pele. Are they seen as offensive nicknames, too? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[GGG]

 

[Dan]

Ah, yes, 'Pom' -- the historical term related to the oppression of the white, British male by brutish, white, mostly-British males.

Very, very comparable to emphasising a characteristic used to justify the invisibility and dehumanisation of an entire swathe of the world's population for hundreds of years.

Using your Indigenous football player example, emphasise the magic, not the black. The colour of the man's skin has nothing to do whatsoever with his ability to do take freakish marks; the hard work he's done in training -- and perhaps some element of genetics -- does. Whether his skin is white, black, purple or octarine is wholly irrelevant to that fact.

A good mark is a good mark, irrespective of skin colour. So why does the skin colour come into the equation? The answer, so you can make a tired old joke about 'black magic' that subconsciously reinforces the belief that there is inherent difference between people of different skin colours.



Separately, you've just suggested there that Indigenous Australians have an innate ability to play football. How is that any different to suggesting those of an Asian origin are innately talented at mathematics? That white people naturally have immense skill in racism?

Whenever you ascribe something to somebody's race, whether it be a positive or negative trait, you completely deny the agency of that individual and ignore processes of socialisation over hundreds, if not thousands, of years, to conveniently associate it with skin colour instead.

 

[sledger]

I haven't seen half a dozen posts just today talking about the blocking my posts fella........you might think you're a great poster but I can assure you that does't appear to be the consensus.

I've gone to lengths in a few posts in here to explain my thought process, all you have dished up is one liners of gash that tell us nothing of your views.........and you're telling me I'm ignorant?? GTFO.

I'm afraid all your thought process boils down to is "I'm white, and I don't care about this sort of thing, and my comments based on race should be taken as compliments, I can't understand why anyone would get offended by me making determinations about them based on their ethnicity". Can you not see how one-eyed, degenerative, vulgar, stupid, tawdry, depressing, embarrassing and mind-numbing this sort of attitude is? It's the kind of post that makes me half expect oxygen masks to drop down from the ceiling while red and white lights guide us all to the nearest exits.

 

[harsh.ag]

Racism isn't necessarily down to discrimination and prejudice though; whenever you're treating a group of people solely due to their ethnicity ("The West Indies are dark horses, d'ya get it, dark horses? It's because they're black hahahahahahahahaha I'm so funny and a little bit edgy . Right guys? Right?"), you're reducing them down to a solitary characteristic -- and a solitary characteristic that has historically been stigmatised and used to justify terrible human rights abuses, at that.

You're basically drawing a commonality between them over their lack of 'whiteness' (given notions of 'white' are far more strongly entrenched than notions of 'black'). Not their shared West Indian heritage. Not their passion for cricket. Their skin colour.

Not to mention calling them 'dark horses' just because they're not white implicitly suggests that their blackness is directly correlated to the longer odds of them winning the World Cup. "They're dark horses because they're black". Well mate, a dark horse has nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with not being good enough to be in the bookies' favourites to win, so you're making a judgement on their cricket playing ability just because it fits with your ****ty joke. That's arguably even more offensive than the joke itself, IMO.

1) I agree with most of what you say.

2) However, I don't think it is relevant to what I was saying.

3) When I said, "Describing someone accurately", I didn't mean "reducing them down to a solitary characteristic".

4) Believe it or not, there are people on this forum coming from countries which do not have a history of subjugating people based on their skin color. So, even though a lot of you may have that scarring, some of us don't. Are we supposed to apologize for that?

5) My point was not about dark horses. It was a general comment.

6) There is also a subtle racism when you can describe things as "white" (white lightning et al) without being offensive, and not as "black" without not.

7) Again, things like "norms of white" are not strongly entrenched everywhere. If there is a bit of white guilt involved here, why am I obligated to participate in that?

Don't think you are totally wrong about what you are saying though, and hopefully I don't come across as a nutjob. Don't think I am a racist, but then again, who does?

 

[Adders]

****ing hell.........if you have taken that from anything I have said then you really are stupid Sledger.

Night all.........

 

[sledger]

****ing hell.........if you have taken that from anything I have said then you really are stupid Sledger.

Night all.........

Yeah, how on earth could I have possibly come to that conclusion? Certainly not through an analysis of anything you've said.