The Swamp

Aussie rules Aboriginal football player has 13 year old girl thrown out of game for calling him an ape. I just have to say...I absolutely loathe the idea of "Ape" being a racist term. I know what the implication is but it's just fucking stupid and represents a complete ignorance of phylogeny. There's nothing inhuman about being an ape...that's exactly what we are. It's as accurate as calling someone a human being.

So if "ape" is OK based upon that reasoning, what about "monkey"? A branch too far?

APE CULTURE!

rass wrote:So if "ape" is OK based upon that reasoning, what about "monkey"? A branch too far?

Yes...our taxonomic category is Ape. Not monkey. Ape isn't going anywhere. They've taken one of the few terms that's actually inclusive of all humans, instead of all these divisive labels we like to wear as a badge of honor, and made it derogatory.

I think that's terrible.

EDICT:

From this point on, all determinations as to whether terms are, or are not racist shall be made by Colin Montgomerie.

rass wrote:So if "ape" is OK based upon that reasoning, what about "monkey"? A branch too far?

To add to this, Monkey would be like calling someone a Gorilla or a Bonobo. It's not inclusive of humans and could therefore be considered inhuman and thus racist. But if you were to categorize humans in a group inclusive of monkeys, you would call them primates and that would be completely accurate as well.

Good point, homo.

What about "pedant?" Is that offensive?

Shirley wrote:What about "pedant?" Is that offensive?

I want to live in a world where ignorance isn't celebrated. If that makes me a pedant than I take it as a compliment. More importantly though, I don't want my kids being outcasts just because I taught them science.

Have you taught them context?

rass wrote:Have you taught them context?

Problem with context is, as is usually true in these issues, whose context matters most? The one saying it or the one hearing it? Since today's reality is it's usually the one hearing it, it's usually deemed racist, regardless of the context it was actually said in. PC muckiness in the end. Those who want to be offended can usually find a way to be offended.

rass wrote:Have you taught them context?

I have. It's the people who don't understand context that I'm worried about.

What Doc said too.

OK. Here's what you do. You go meet up with Howard. You have him take you deep into Harlem. Then you jump out and start calling people "ape." Then you let us know if it's racist.

Consider it a scientific experiment.

AB_skin_test wrote:OK. Here's what you do. You go meet up with Howard. You have him take you deep into Harlem. Then you jump out and start calling people "ape." Then you let us know if it's racist.

In that context, it is racist because you're specifically directing it at black people. It's also racist what the girl in the football game did. I'm only saying that I hate that such a diverse, inclusive term came to be used as a derogatory term towards a group of them with a darker skin variation. That is the epitome of ignorance.

SportsDoc wrote:

rass wrote:Have you taught them context?

Problem with context is, as is usually true in these issues, whose context matters most? The one saying it or the one hearing it? Since today's reality is it's usually the one hearing it, it's usually deemed racist, regardless of the context it was actually said in. PC muckiness in the end. Those who want to be offended can usually find a way to be offended.

And, to be sure, there are racist comments made frequently yet unintentionally, that are still racist.

Jerloma wrote:

AB_skin_test wrote:OK. Here's what you do. You go meet up with Howard. You have him take you deep into Harlem. Then you jump out and start calling people "ape." Then you let us know if it's racist.

In that context, it is racist because you're specifically directing it at black people. It's also racist what the girl in the football game did. I'm only saying that I hate that such a diverse, inclusive term came to be used as a derogatory term towards a group of them with a darker skin variation. That is the epitome of ignorance.

OK. Then, as the control part of your experience, hop on the subway to Southie ( Feel free to subsititute a hard, predominately white section of any large town at your convenience. Forgive my ignorance.) and start doing the same. You can have howard drive you there, too if you prefer to keep the variables the same.

I hoped for a minute you were kidding. Then realized you aren't.

Good luck with that.

So faggot I guess is the most racist term because in both situations that would fire them up the most.

Call the blacks water buffalo! They freak out about that and you'll get kicked out of college.

AB_skin_test wrote:

Jerloma wrote:

AB_skin_test wrote:OK. Here's what you do. You go meet up with Howard. You have him take you deep into Harlem. Then you jump out and start calling people "ape." Then you let us know if it's racist.

In that context, it is racist because you're specifically directing it at black people. It's also racist what the girl in the football game did. I'm only saying that I hate that such a diverse, inclusive term came to be used as a derogatory term towards a group of them with a darker skin variation. That is the epitome of ignorance.

OK. Then, as the control part of your experience, hop on the subway to Southie ( Feel free to subsititute a hard, predominately white section of any large town at your convenience. Forgive my ignorance.) and start doing the same. You can have howard drive you there, too if you prefer to keep the variables the same.

I'm sorry, but you can continue throwing strawmen at me all you like but feel free to show me where I said that I didn't understand that it was a racist term. Oh...you made that part up?

I don't understand "why" it's a racist term.

Icepenis wrote:So faggot I guess is the most racist term because in both situations that would fire them up the most.

One variable at a time, iceepenis!

elflaco wrote:I hoped for a minute you were kidding. Then realized you aren't.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with what? Attempting to have a fucking semi-intelligent conversation with Swampers before they resort to straw men and ad-hominems for no particular reason?

Jerloma wrote:I hate that such a diverse, inclusive term came to be used as a derogatory term towards a group of them with a darker skin variation. That is the epitome of ignorance.

Wait.... You're surprised that people ignorant enough to generalize and label an entire race of people as "sub-human" were behaving like the epitome of ignorance? Did you expect these people to consult their Funk & Wagnell before calling someone names?

Jerloma's erudite racist wrote:"Hey, Billy Joe Bob, get me that en-sigh-clo-pedya, I wants to make sure I'm not using this insult all improper-like afore I tell that boy off."

ZMan wrote:

Jerloma wrote:I hate that such a diverse, inclusive term came to be used as a derogatory term towards a group of them with a darker skin variation. That is the epitome of ignorance.

Wait.... You're surprised that people ignorant enough to generalize and label an entire race of people as "sub-human" were behaving like the epitome of ignorance? Did you expect these people to consult their Funk & Wagnell before calling someone names?

Jerloma's erudite racist wrote:"Hey, Billy Joe Bob, get me that en-sigh-clo-pedya, I wants to make sure I'm not using this insult all improper-like afore I tell that boy off."

Alright...well that's a great point. No, I probably shouldn't be, I guess.

Jerloma wrote:

AB_skin_test wrote:OK. Here's what you do. You go meet up with Howard. You have him take you deep into Harlem. Then you jump out and start calling people "ape." Then you let us know if it's racist.

In that context, it is racist because you're specifically directing it at black people. It's also racist what the girl in the football game did. I'm only saying that I hate that such a diverse, inclusive term came to be used as a derogatory term towards a group of them with a darker skin variation. That is the epitome of ignorance.

i can't decide if this is racist. or districtist.

AB_skin_test wrote:OK. Here's what you do. You go meet up with Howard. You have him take you deep into Harlem. Then you jump out and start calling people "ape." Then you let us know if it's racist.

Consider it a scientific experiment.

Is this supposed to be taken in the same context as a White American kid calling a Black American man an "ape"? If so, it's worth remembering that Australia ain't America and Aboriginal-Australian ain't African-American.

My first two thoughts were that "ape" was a comment on Adam Goodes' intelligence rather than his race and that, Googling images of him, without the beard he looks more Iberian or Mediterranean than anything else. Or a Roberto Luongo sort of Italian. Even bearded (as in that video) he looks kinda Mesopotamian.

I'd equate "ape" with words like "oaf or "buffoon" or "dolt" before I'd equate it with any of the more severely harsh words I've heard used toward Aboriginals. Although based on the extensive research I've just done (about 30-seconds on Google), "Rock Ape" appears to be somewhat common in the Aussie vernacular, perhaps akin to the American use of "spook" or "coon" or "cracker" or "honky" or "litigator".

Oddly, just today the president of another AFL club called him "King Kong".

I don't know...good questions. I've actually most commonly heard the word ape used as a derogatory term towards a person with a particularly large amount of body hair. This might be to indicate (wrongly) that the person is somehow less evolved than a smoother fellow and that may be the same reason that people use it as a racial term.

Still dead, right?

ETA:
You can fox the fox
Rat on the rat
You can Ape the Ape
I know about that!

Something knocked me out the trees
Now I'm on my knees

Scottie wrote:Is this supposed to be taken in the same context as a White American kid calling a Black American man an "ape"? If so, it's worth remembering that Australia ain't America and Aboriginal-Australian ain't African-American.

I don't think the comparison really should be to America, because thankfully, whites don't call Blacks apes in public settings.

But many places in Europe are notorious for having soccer fans make monkey chants and throw bananas at black players.

I think that is the proper context.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Scottie wrote:Is this supposed to be taken in the same context as a White American kid calling a Black American man an "ape"? If so, it's worth remembering that Australia ain't America and Aboriginal-Australian ain't African-American.

I don't think the comparison really should be to America, because thankfully, whites don't call Blacks apes in public settings.

But many places in Europe are notorious for having soccer fans make monkey chants and throw bananas at black players.

I think that is the proper context.

That actually makes sense. If you're going to be a racist douche, monkey works. As does silverback or chimp or bonobo. But "ape" is just entirely missing the point.

Off the subject, but I think it's almost ironic that SportsDoc debates this while sporting the Fighting Sioux logo, which spurs its own dialogue on the subject.

Jerloma wrote:

Shirley wrote:What about "pedant?" Is that offensive?

I want to live in a world where ignorance isn't celebrated. If that makes me a pedant than I take it as a compliment. More importantly though, I don't want my kids being outcasts just because I taught them science.

See, you're applying scientific, pedantic meaning to a common English language word. Language outside of science isn't nearly so precise. In common English usage, ape essentially means the same thing as gorilla or even chimpanzee.

This is similar to debates over what is a fruit or vegetable. Scientifically, a tomato, zucchini, or eggplant is a fruit, but people would generally consider those vegetables and wouldn't expect to find any in a fruit salad.

I know. My grievance is completely over a commonly accepted case of semantics and I'm over-analyzing the shit out of it. That's what I do. Some people fuck peacocks...I over-analyze shit.

sancarlos wrote:Off the subject, but I think it's almost ironic that SportsDoc debates this while sporting the Fighting Sioux logo, which spurs its own dialogue on the subject.

Speaking of which, the last gasp legal attempt against the NCAA to keep the name was thrown out of Federal Court this week.

That final court attempt was initiated by the Spirit Lake Sioux tribe. It was continued even after both UND and the State Board of Higher Ed had dropped all appeals. It was continued even after the state and the school said it would not go back regardless of the outcome of the suit by Spirit Lake.

Talk about your fighting Sioux!

Relevant. Charlton Heston, Racist.

Jerloma wrote:I know. My grievance is completely over a commonly accepted case of semantics and I'm over-analyzing the shit out of it. That's what I do. Some people fuck peacocks...I over-analyze shit.

Idiot. You'd fuck a peafowl.

You're not gay.

Irrelevant. Heathcliff, weird, but probably not Racist.

Shirley wrote:

Jerloma wrote:Some people fuck peacocks...

Idiot. You'd fuck a peafowl.

So, this explains Chris Andersen