Is "monkey" offensive

[usy]

IMO, that creates differences between people, some people dont like to be called "black" by "non blacks". I've never called anyone "black", I dont like the term.

Usy falls foul of PC a little too much me thinks. Bearing in mind though, you would have been hounded in the streets of England for calling a black person black 15 years ago. Such was the air of caution around the race issue.

Racism is a bad feeling.

 

[King Pietersen]

If you were describing a black person what would you call them then ? :?

 

[Animator!]

It depends on the context Usy. If I call a black person, black as a desciption of him, it's okay, because he is, plain to see black. However if I used it in the context of insulting him it'd be racist. Its why there is such a fine line between the two, which often becomes very hazy.

 

[Leicester Fox]

Isn't real black the absence of colour? Anyway what annoys me is when you see in America they refer to them as African Americans, doesn't that make them seem like their different to white Americans?

 

[Animator!]

There's a lot of issue in American because of Evangelic Christians holding such power in America.

 

[usy]

I have a few "white" americans people in my class,, they say people from chile, Brazil etc.. are not "americans", isn't America a huge continent (mainly 2).. whats wrong with calling all of them "americans" .. if I can be known as "Asian", sometimes "indian" (which is wrong ).

The word does not belong to jsut them.

 

[Skater]

I have a few "white" americans people in my class,, they say people from chile, Brazil etc.. are not "americans", isn't America a huge continent (mainly 2).. whats wrong with calling all of them "americans" .. if I can be known as "Asian", sometimes "indian" (which is wrong ).

The word does not belong to jsut them.

They probably mean they are not from the United States of America. Brazilians, Chileans, etc. are South Americans.

 

[PhilD123]

Look at this:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/276497.html

Gibbs got banned for 2 games for it, and what he said isn't considered as offensive as what Singh said. Did Indians stand up and complain then? The ICC have to show consistency, they have done here and still people are complaining. I think 3 games is lenient for a sports professional making a racist slur.

 

[sohum]

Look at this:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/276497.html

Gibbs got banned for 2 games for it, and what he said isn't considered as offensive as what Singh said. Did Indians stand up and complain then? The ICC have to show consistency, they have done here and still people are complaining. I think 3 games is lenient for a sports professional making a racist slur.

You obviously don't understand the argument that has not yet been proven by anyone. You and the rest of PC's self-proclaimed neutral army think they understand the issue and that the comment is racist and Harbhajan should be getting the stick. The real issue is about lack of evidence. Keeping it on topic, Harbhajan is guilty if he used this term to describe Symonds ONLY BECAUSE of what transpired in the India series. However, we don't even get to that stage because we have no neutral evidence of Harbhajan even uttering these words.

 

[PhilD123]

What happened to respecting the Match Officials decision? If Mike Proctor believes there is enough evidence to say that Singh did say it, then surely his word must be believed. Also, you can say what you like about the Aussies, but I dont think they'd fabricate a story like this.

 

[barmyarmy]

You obviously don't understand the argument that has not yet been proven by anyone. You and the rest of PC's self-proclaimed neutral army think they understand the issue and that the comment is racist and Harbhajan should be getting the stick. The real issue is about lack of evidence. Keeping it on topic, Harbhajan is guilty if he used this term to describe Symonds ONLY BECAUSE of what transpired in the India series. However, we don't even get to that stage because we have no neutral evidence of Harbhajan even uttering these words.

Wait a minute. This thread is not about guilt, it's about whether "monkey" is a racist term and most the Indians on the forum have made it clear they don't consider the term to be racist. The "self-proclaimed neutral army" are merely united in their disgust at the refusal of certain people to admit the term, if uttered, was intended as a racist slur.

 

[sohum]

What happened to respecting the Match Officials decision? If Mike Proctor believes there is enough evidence to say that Singh did say it, then surely his word must be believed. Also, you can say what you like about the Aussies, but I dont think they'd fabricate a story like this.

Similarly you can say what you like about Tendulkar and Kumble, but I don't think they would stand behind their man as vociferously as they have.

Wait a minute. This thread is not about guilt, it's about whether "monkey" is a racist term and most the Indians on the forum have made it clear they don't consider the term to be racist. The "self-proclaimed neutral army" are merely united in their disgust at the refusal of certain people to admit the term, if uttered, was intended as a racist slur.

Yes. But if you read PhilD123's post, he implies that all of us are complaining because we think that Harbhajan didn't intend the term as a racist abuse, by bringing up the point about Indian fans not complaining about the Gibbs incident.

 

[aussie1st]

Like with any other word depends which country it is used.

 

[barmyarmy]

Yes. But if you read PhilD123's post, he implies that all of us are complaining because we think that Harbhajan didn't intend the term as a racist abuse, by bringing up the point about Indian fans not complaining about the Gibbs incident.

That has been suggested. I even read a report that the Australian-Indian community were suggesting that the term was somehow a complement to Symonds.

 

[PhilD123]

Yes. But if you read PhilD123's post, he implies that all of us are complaining because we think that Harbhajan didn't intend the term as a racist abuse, by bringing up the point about Indian fans not complaining about the Gibbs incident.

Nope I implied that "monkey" is an offensive term, as what Gibbs said was, therefore the consistency shown by the ICC is correct.