Is "monkey" offensive

[svijay]

If a comic made a racist joke and offended instead of making people laugh, would it be racism?

Totally. That's what happened to Don Imus, and rightly so, in my opinion.

 

[sohum]

Speaking of racism, is the term "racist" only used to distinguish negative instances of cases where discrimination is made by race? For example, if you were a manager for domestic accommodation at an airport and someone of Indian origin came up to you, say, at the Houston airport. Would it be racist if you showed him primarily hotels in the Hilcroft area--which is basically like the section of Houston that has a lot of Indian shops, restaurants and people? You would be doing no harm.

As for racist jokes--there are jokes that are offending and those that are not. Russell Peters believes if we aren't able to laugh at characteristics of each other, then we really are living a life of misery (well not exactly that--that's my paraphrase ).

 

[Kev]

Sohum, you can have positive racism, but i don't think your example would fall into that.

I have a question too.

So it seems that Indians dont think calling someone a monkey is offensive, so the implication is that Symonds shouldn't have been offended. Correct?

If that is the case, should the Indians here who were offended by the picture where Symonds face was Photoshopped onto a religious painting be offended? Because I don't find that particularly offensive, I'm not religious but I see corruptions of western religious symbols all the time. Comedy Jesus' are commonplace, I posted a comedy picture of "god" here once in a cloud from a Monty Python movie and I must mention the South Park episode "Are you there god, it's me Jesus" where God is depicted as a weird rat looking thing with a lizard tongue.

Does the defence that it's not offensive in my culture stand up in this case?

 

[pal]

So it seems that Indians dont think calling someone a monkey is offensive, so the implication is that Symonds shouldn't have been offended. Correct?

Perhaps initially, that is, during the series in India. But, once he made it clear that he was offended by it, there is really no excuse in using the term.

 

[Kev]

Then is there anything more to talk about?

 

[Will_NA]

Yes, I think so...


What species of monkey?

 

[pal]

Well, in my earlier response, I was referring to your comment that the term is racist across all cultures. I don't think it is. And perhaps those few moronic Indians who were taunting him in the series in India were unaware, but once he came out and said to the press that he was offended by it, there is no excuse in using the word against him.

But, again, the other aspect of the incident is that we don't have video or audio evidence that Bhajji used the term. Cricinfo has stated that Ponting and Gilchrist said they didn't hear anything during the trial. The umpires have stated that they didn't hear anything. Tendulkar said Bhajji didn't use the term. There must have been one or two of the other Aussie players who said that he did, but it still comes down to hearsay.

 

[Kev]

But this thread isn't about if he actually called him a monkey, its about if the term is offensive.

What we have found out is that yes it is offensive, although perhaps not everyone would have thought so, but then we have also found out that it works the other way around. So I don't see any further discussion is required as the topic has come to its conclusion. Different cultures are offended by different things.

 

[pal]

But this thread isn't about if he actually called him a monkey, its about if the term is offensive.

I just wanted to be clear about that aspect of this discussion. I would agree with most of what you said in the second paragraph.

 

[Cricketman]

This is for certain
I dont find monkey offensive. But, If Harbajan actually said it, let him get all the ban he deserves.
Just clearing that up.

 

[Kev]

My point is that it matters not if you don't find it offensive, it matters that Symonds finds it offensive. Just like it does not matter if I don't find the Photoshopped picture offensive but it it matters if Indians find it offensive.

 

[Sureshot]

Yea yea, we've got that sorted out. He shouldn't have said it, providing he did of course. But what if racism is used in humour. Do you still call the person a racist? It isn't offending the audience.

There's a reason why Roy Brown is banned from TV. Making racist jokes and playing on racial stereotypes, I think, are different. But we're drifting from the subject now.

 

[sohum]

So it seems that Indians dont think calling someone a monkey is offensive, so the implication is that Symonds shouldn't have been offended. Correct?

If that is the case, should the Indians here who were offended by the picture where Symonds face was Photoshopped onto a religious painting be offended? Because I don't find that particularly offensive, I'm not religious but I see corruptions of western religious symbols all the time.

There is one important difference and that it is a difference of racism and religion. India is a wholly secular country with large contingents of Hindu, Muslim and Christian populations, apart from other religions. While their race only loosely correlates to their religion, you cannot really claim that people of a certain race are of a certain religion.

Secondly, religion is unfortunately a really touchy subject in India. Politicians regularly use it as a method to divide the population and generate votes. I personally believe religion is far overdone in India, but if you come to India and actually see how intensely they worship their various Gods, you will understand why this is causing a great furore. People look at religion to make everyday decisions--even a decision like whether they should cut their hair or not, a certain day.

To summarize, while the cases are similar, I think they are different. I myself was not offended by the superposition, but that is due to questions about my own faith. I think a more similar comparison would be an insult made against Australians, rather than against a certain race. That would evoke anger from all factions of the populations, rather than those who have been targeted and those who believe that the targeted aren't doing a good enough job standing up for themselves. Religion crosses the boundaries of race, basically.

Different cultures are offended by different things.

I would summarize it even further. Different people are offended by different things. Guess what? That is the base premise of our political correctness-obsessed society as well! It seems that we have reached a point where we cannot let the butt of a joke decide if the joke was offensive to him or not, and hence we decide to decide for him.

 

[Ponting_14]

Did anyone watch sky news on foxtel today? They reported that Sharma said something really bad after Symonds was given not out. They didn't say what the word was though. Did anyone watch it and do you think you know what he said?

 

[SciD]

Did anyone watch sky news on foxtel today? They reported that Sharma said something really bad after Symonds was given not out. They didn't say what the word was though. Did anyone watch it and do you think you know what he said?

Every Indian could read his mouth. If I post it here my post will be deleted by mods.