January 27, 2002

10:54 PM

I believe some of the comments in this thread are completely out of line.
posted by ashbury to etiquette/policy at 10:54 PM (46 comments total)

Frankly, I became very upset at the insensitivity. There is no call for those kinds of crass and racist remarks. Next time, keep it to yourself and bring something a little more enlightening to the table.
posted by ashbury at 10:59 PM on January 27, 2002

Absolutely right, ashbury. Holloway, catch---laughing at land rights issues? "Cook um, eat um"? Grow up, both of you. The court was being asked to recognise a perfectly sound principle and the case is part of an ongoing attempt to reach some sort of equitable arrangement between Aboriginal and non-indigenous Australia. (If you are from NZ Holloway, I am surprised that you do not have more sensitivity to such issues.) That FPP was just plain ugly, and so were your comments within.
posted by sennoma at 11:13 PM on January 27, 2002

Darren Bloomfield, presented as a savage in the post, is, as far as I can tell from a quick search, actually one of the most respected Aboriginal activists. He's one of the people behind the unofficial "Tent" Embassy which has been standing in front of Canberra Parliament for over 30 years and been an embarrassment to the Australian government ever since.
As activists, they are constantly putting Australian law to the challenge. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that this case is considered to be difficult, given the cultural and legal issues involved. The issues at hand are complex and could have led to an interesting discussion.

However, by being presented in the asinine way it was, it has the opposite effect and makes a travesty of the whole issue of aboriginal rights and indeed human dignity.

As for being funny, well har har.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:18 PM on January 27, 2002

[Here's the Sydney Morning Herald story, which is more complete than the original link.]
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:23 PM on January 27, 2002

Grow up? You demonstrated that you didn't even know what I was laughing at.

Stop being ridiculous.
posted by holloway at 11:29 PM on January 27, 2002

I've never been one for being particularly empathic toward other cultures...It always seems very condescending to me. I think the major problem is people not reading the article, and having no idea what the story is really about.
posted by Doug at 11:32 PM on January 27, 2002

Well why don't you actually tell us what you were laughing at then? It must be very funny to occupy so many lines with ha has.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:33 PM on January 27, 2002

I re-read the article, I re-read holloway's post and comments. You are right, holloway, I don't see what you are laughing at. What was so funny, and in what way am I being ridiculous?
posted by sennoma at 11:42 PM on January 27, 2002

You demonstrated that you didn't even know what I was laughing at.

And you demonstrated one or more of the following:
-- Having not read the article in question
-- Having little or no respect for the differences between cultures
-- Having no understanding of the background nor of the implications of the article in question.
Optamystic's comment summed it up perfectly.

And from Catch's comment: "the natives" want to 'cook um, eat um'
Either you are implying that they are not actually the natives, which is erroneous, or you are displaying reckless bigotry and ignorance. Which one, Catch?
posted by j.edwards at 11:43 PM on January 27, 2002

Oh, come on. Calling for the ritualistic slaying of a police officer is "perfectly sound principle"?

This case is the perfect example of cultural sensitivity taken to the point of lunacy. And my use of the phrase "cook um, eat um"(which is some part of my cultural make-up), in response to Optamystic's condescending "the natives" has sennoma all frothy about the panties, whereas a request to kill going through a court in a democratic nation slides on by.


posted by Catch at 11:43 PM on January 27, 2002

It must be very funny to occupy so many lines with ha has.

Oh it is, believe me, but explaining a joke is doomed from the start.

And you demonstrated one or more of the following:
-- Having not read the article in question
-- Having little or no respect for the differences between cultures
-- Having no understanding of the background nor of the implications of the article in question.

With those sterling choices, bigot, you've got me pinned.
posted by holloway at 11:47 PM on January 27, 2002

j.edwards: Your question corresponded with my last post which I guess answers you.
If you didn't get that "the natives" was a quote from the previous comment... well, you haven't been reading very carefully, have you?

posted by Catch at 11:48 PM on January 27, 2002

whereas a request to kill going through a court in a democratic nation slides on by.

It's a request based on their culture, and so the issue becomes not one of killing (because I would hope it is obvious to all involved that the police officer will not be turned over), but becomes an issue of culture seperation, land rights, and specifically not being condescending, which we are not doing by debating the merits of their claim but but laughing at their request, at the circumstances surrounding it, and at the use of the phrase "the natives" to mean exactly what its definition implies.
posted by j.edwards at 11:49 PM on January 27, 2002

This case is the perfect example of cultural sensitivity taken to the point of lunacy

Well this is certainly worth debating. If it had been included in the post, all would have been well. In any case, if we're all grown up we should go back to the post and actually discuss it. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:57 PM on January 27, 2002

Catch, the principle I was talking about is that the differences between indigenous and modern Australian law and culture are deserving of respect. I agree that an actual call to spear someone is a bit drastic---but then the officer is alleged to have tried to run Bloomfield over, which is also a bit beyond the pale. My feeling is that Bloomfield is pushing boundaries here, as many activists do, hoping to be met somewhere in the middle where a reasonable legal and practical compromise can be worked out.

As for Optamystic's use of the word "natives", I'd avoid the word myself, but the rest of his/her post provided a context that indicates to me that he/she did not intend to be condescending. Of interest to me: in what way is "cook um, eat um" part of your cultural makeup?

(See how easy it is, holloway? When you don't call names and write meaningless "ha ha ha" all over the place, it's perfectly possible to have a civil discussion of a complex issue.)

(On preview: take my word for it, hollloway, jedwards is not a bigot. I don't see what basis you have for calling him one. If you won't explain the joke, will you at least explain your gratuitous insults?)

posted by sennoma at 12:00 AM on January 28, 2002

Well this is certainly worth debating. If it had been included in the post, all would have been well.

Or would it? Or WOULD it? or would IT?
That some people wouldn't immediately ask themselves that question after reading the article - well, the concept is terrifying to me.

See how easy it is, holloway? When you don't call names and write meaningless "ha ha ha" all over the place, it's perfectly possible to have a civil discussion of a complex issue.

What... call names? The closest I got was calling j.edwards a bigot. With his 'pick one or more' list he fits the label to a T.

But yes, I do see how easy it is, mother.
posted by holloway at 12:10 AM on January 28, 2002

It's a request based on their culture, and so the issue becomes not one of killing

I call Rot, Poppycock, and Bullshit on that.
Labelling beliefs or actions 'cultural' does not magically make them valid and worthy.

Sometimes culture is perverted and cruel.
"cook um, eat um" is perverted and cruel.
Grudge killings by spear are perverted and cruel.
Flying into skyscrapers is perverted and cruel.

And ridicule is a healthier way to deal with wrong ideas and actions than fear disguised as cultural sensitivity.
posted by Catch at 12:11 AM on January 28, 2002

Oh it is, believe me, but explaining a joke is doomed from the start

normally yes, but you are leaving a lot of sensitive people with the feeling that you are racist. you do have the option to "explain the joke" not with the expectation that it will be found funny, but to alleviate the impression you are fostering with the offended. but you don't owe anybody anything.

posted by victors at 12:14 AM on January 28, 2002

big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

That's me to a T, based on that list. What now?

Labelling beliefs or actions 'cultural' does not magically make them valid and worthy.
Woop, I worded that badly. It certainly doesn't make them worthy, but the problem does differ -- how do you tell them that their culture is "wrong?" It becomes an argument amidst beliefs, and whilst I don't want to defend the request for the policeman to be put to death, I wouldn't want to err on the side of condemning anyone for beliefs they possess, even if those beliefs do not coincide with my (or my culture's) ethic, based on our own beliefs.

fear disguised as cultural sensitivity
I am not afraid of anything in this situation. I think it is more important that we focus on the implications of denying perceived rights (even when the consequences of those perceived rights are anathema to us) in terms of dominating (sort of a pseudo-federalist thing, I suppose) legal systems and methods of appeal.
posted by j.edwards at 12:22 AM on January 28, 2002

"in what way is "cook um, eat um" part of your cultural makeup?"

Some stirring of a tribal memory, maybe to do with this or this or even a bit of this.
posted by Catch at 12:23 AM on January 28, 2002

normally yes,

No, always, and I think you agree with me on that.

but you are leaving a lot of sensitive people with the feeling that you are racist.

Tough. There's nothing at all race-related in what I have said. These sensitive folk will just have to learn to read.
posted by holloway at 12:26 AM on January 28, 2002

how do you tell them that their culture is "wrong?"

Get thee behind me, Satan!
I am horribly tempted to post a reply involving "beatings and guns and a good dose of the Church" just to feel the air in here boil over but I will refrain.
I hope you all appreciate the sacrifice.
posted by Catch at 12:30 AM on January 28, 2002

No, always, and I think you agree with me on that.

If I would meant always I would have said "always"

Tough.

Your prerogative (and I think you agree with on that).
posted by victors at 12:30 AM on January 28, 2002

FWIW, I thought holloway's "joke" was funny. To do a serious-sounding "more" link as more laughter, that was funny. No one has ever tried it before and I got a laugh out of it. I'm not saying the article warrants such response, and it makes holloway come off sounding a bit insensitive, but the story comes off a bit absurd, and holloway reaction can be seen as also absurd, and I think he did it to prove a point.

Anyway, cultural sensitivity aside, it's not worth worrying about, unless someone doesn't know holloway, doesn't see his tongue-in-cheek goof as being tongue-in-cheek, and thinks metafilter is the new fark where everything is wacky and funny.
posted by mathowie at 12:32 AM on January 28, 2002

Some stirring of a tribal memory, maybe to do with this or this or even a bit of this.
I am horribly tempted to post a reply involving "beatings and guns and a good dose of the Church"

Catch, do I detect an allergy to moral relativism? (Should we switch back to the thread proper? It seems to have been rescued.)

Matt: I disagree that holloway's post was anything but inane, and enough such posts and metafilter will be the new fark unless people call him on it. That's why I joined the discussion.
posted by sennoma at 12:37 AM on January 28, 2002

These sensitive folk will just have to learn to read.

As one of the sensitive, illiterate folk involved, I humbly ask you to teach this poor foreigner how to read the following text, which constitutes the sum total of your contribution to the original post:

"Ahahah ahah hah ah ahh HAHAHAA (more inside)[...]
HAHAHA HHAAAA HAHA HAHahah ha ha ha ha ahha ahah ahah ahhahh haha aha haha hah

aha hah ahh AHAH HA HAH AHAH AH AH AH HAHAA AHAHA AHAA AHA aha aha aha oh aha haa ha ha a

AHAH AH AH AH AH HHA AAH AH HHAHAH AH AHahAH AH AH HAAHAHAHA AH AHAAHAHA AAHAHA AHAHAAHHA AHAAHAHAAA A AHSAHAHAHAH AH HAA HAH A HAHHHAAAHAA AHAH AHAAaa hahahah ahahaaaa ahhahahah hahaha
*wipes-tear*"]

I realize it's difficult and no doubt on a par with Finnegan's Wake but please make an effort.

No wait - that would ruin it, right?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:37 AM on January 28, 2002

Get thee behind me, Satan!

Heh heh. I see what you mean, I think. I'm calling it a night. Holloway, if you want to explain what's funny, I would still like to hear it. Catch.. um.. good catch. Mathowie -- I got a laugh too, until I read the article. I sort of wish it didn't become what it did, but the history behind it makes me a little nauseous.

The original thread is getting pretty good, too.
posted by j.edwards at 12:39 AM on January 28, 2002

wait just a gol durn minute! this whole thing is a bitch slap on Finnegan's Wake!?! holy shit! now I get it! That is hilarious! Man, this crowd is deeeeeep....
posted by victors at 12:49 AM on January 28, 2002

in response to Optamystic's condescending "the natives"

na·tive (ntv)
adj.
Existing in or belonging to one by nature; innate: native ability.
Being such by birth or origin: a native Scot.
Being one's own because of the place or circumstances of one's birth: our native land.
Originating, growing, or produced in a certain place or region; indigenous: a plant native to Asia.

Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place.
Of, belonging to, or characteristic of such inhabitants: native dress; the native diet of Polynesia.

How is that condescending?

posted by Optamystic at 2:07 AM on January 28, 2002

I would have thought it was mildly condescending because of its cultural background. Words don't pop clean and fresh from the pages of dictionaries - they come loaded with years of use. For me, at least, "the natives" resonates with British occupation in India.

On a different track - wouldn't this only be cultural sensitivity taken to the extreme if the policeman was speared to death? What's so extreme about finding a compromise?
posted by andrew cooke at 3:48 AM on January 28, 2002

The policeman is in no danger of being speared to death.
I was taking issue with what I perceived to be holloway's mocking of the Aboriginie's entire grievance. I simply feel that it is not something to laugh at.

In the U.S., those who were once referred to as "indians" are now, (far more correctly) referred to as "Native Americans". I was simply using this logic when I typed my comment.
posted by Optamystic at 4:02 AM on January 28, 2002

This MeTalk post is the epitome of uptight PC self-righteousness. All bow to ashbury and sennoma, dictating culture in the new millenium.

posted by mischief at 5:13 AM on January 28, 2002

*sigh*
posted by walrus at 5:22 AM on January 28, 2002

Early on in the thread in question, I asked holloway if maybe he could "explain the joke" a bit more -- I know very little about the political struggles between Australia's native people and the government, I thought maybe there was something more to it. There wasn't.

"PC" vs. "Anti-PC" aside, the thread sucked, it was one of the standard news items in Reuters Oddly Enough category... you could just as easily post every one of those with a "HA HA HA". The silly room-mate double teaming in this thread by Catch and Holloway also sucks.

In short, what walrus just said.
posted by malphigian at 7:23 AM on January 28, 2002

Please note that Holloway's URL places him in New Zealand. I rather expect that he would hard pressed to be unfamiliar with the issues surrounded aboriginal causes and movements. To label him racist is unsound and fully lacking in proof.
posted by gsh at 7:44 AM on January 28, 2002

while i can see how holloway's laughing could be interpreted in a negative light, i took a different spin on it that doesn't seem to have been brought up. instead of laughing at Darren Bloomfield, he seemed to be laughing at the police. it seems a nice case of giving someone a taste of their own medicine, in a way. "oh yeah? fuck with our ceremony? on OUR land? we'll take you to court to spear your ass! bet you weren't expecting that!" i wholeheartedly approve of the sentiment of what Bloomfield is trying to do. i see the very serious implications of his action, but i can still find it funny that someone's sticking it to the police in a style befitting what was done to them.

not that he should actually get to spear the guy. not that he would ever legally be able to. but the act of taking it to court is funny in a wonderful "fuck the police" kind of way, i think, rather than a "those silly savages!" way.

no one on mefi gives anyone any credit for being a decent human being anymore.
posted by pikachulolita at 7:51 AM on January 28, 2002

Regardless of motive, if you want a thread with good discussion, you don't start it out with HA HA HA HA HA. It's self-sabotaging. If you want everyone to know how superior you are, maybe you do.
posted by rodii at 9:19 AM on January 28, 2002

After getting some sleep, I still find the thread to be upsetting. I could deal with holloway's laughter, though I found it too open-ended for interpretation, but the ensuing comments by Catch still make me tick.

Mischief-there is nothing "uptight PC self-righteousness" about me. I sometimes feel that if you lived in a "PC kind of way", you wouldn't be able to leave the house for fear of offending somebody. But I do believe in treating people with fairness and equality, which can certainly be thought of as PC.
posted by ashbury at 9:38 AM on January 28, 2002

ashbury, i agree with you 100% about catch's comments. i see nothing PC about saying that "cook um, eat um" is an offensive thing to say.

what disturbs me the most, though, is how he seemed to use a history of racism as an excuse for making such comments. catch, i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't think about what you said in the original thread before you posted it, but i don't care what history says. if anyone is ever going to get beyond intolerance and harping on differences, it is imperative that history not be used as an excuse. i don't want to preach to you, but as long as people make statements about any bad thing being part of their cultural heritage, and thus excusing themselves from having to behave in a virtuous way, no progress can really be made.
posted by pikachulolita at 11:33 AM on January 28, 2002

With all due respect, Pikachulolita, what the hell are you talking about? "find it funny that someone's sticking it to the police in a style befitting what was done to them." They want to kill the guy, you realize? They also want to kill him in an antiquated, silly sounding way (thus most of the laughter in the original thread).

Ignoring the broader context of the article, the fact that they believe the policemen deserves death for his actions is insane. Bloomfield deserves to be ridiculed for a comment like that. If the majority of people can't see past that comment to the heart of the story...whose fault is that?
posted by Doug at 11:53 AM on January 28, 2002

They want to kill the guy, you realize?

Based on the info Miguel posted in the thread and the background on the story, I'd say he knows as well as we do that the policeman is in no danger of being speared to death. Rampant speculation begins: I'd say he's trying to make a point, and just doing it rather dramatically.
posted by j.edwards at 12:10 PM on January 28, 2002

if you want a thread with good discussion, you don't start it out with HA HA HA HA HA

Exactly what I have been thinking
-if this is funny, I would like for it to be explained by the original poster, he/she has done nothing but post a (questionably offensive FPP) in a thoughtless fashion, and has arrogantly offended anyone who has asked for some sort of clarification.
If this is the thoughtful community it has always seemed, then I can't understand how an ambiguous post that spurs animosity can be left unexplained by the original poster. I would love to know what necessitated hundreds of hahaha's.
posted by Eric Lloyd NYC at 1:50 PM on January 28, 2002

it's alright, doug, not much respect is necessarily due. :) however, j.edwards said it better than i could. it seemed to me, from reading the article, like a gesture that he *knew* would get nowhere, designed to make a point, and a point that i think is not out of line in the situation. yes, it would certainly be out of line had he actually killed the policeman, but the simple fact that he's *taking it to court* seems a pretty good indication of the level of intent he actually has to kill the guy. it's not like he put a price on his head or anything.

if the policeman turns up dead later this month, though, feel free to call me a big fat liar. the article was way too short to really be able to tell the specifics of the situation in order to defend it past initial impressions.
posted by pikachulolita at 3:11 PM on January 28, 2002

For me, at least, "the natives" resonates with British occupation in India.

I don't see that anyone really has the least responsibility for accommodating any connotations which you choose to attach to a particular term. Rather, it seems to me that the responsibility lies with you to parse the specific usage for intent.

Foolish to use a word naively, with no awareness of its potential effect upon others; more foolish still to assume that you and you alone claim ownership to any word and its meaning. Both are sins against communication, which is, after all, the primary function of language.
posted by rushmc at 6:11 PM on January 28, 2002

Um, well native does come from nasci, to be born, as in native New Yorker. Christmas in some Romance languages(Natal)comes from the same root. The derogatory sense is considered rare by recent dictionaries, e.g. the latest Collins English Dictionary. And in land issues, etc, it does have the useful meaning of "born here".

So I dunno. It depends whether you're saying "The natives are revolting" or "native art", on the one hand - as a noun - or whether you use it as an adjective. I'd say the first usage tends to be pejorative, but not the second.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:38 PM on January 28, 2002

If there are more than 5 Native Americans on your property, you may shoot them. (via dumb laws)

Ahahah ahah hah ah ahh HAHAHAA etc. etc.

Hmmmmm. I think it is OK to admit that mixing a 3000 year old culture with a 30 year old one can give rise to certain -- cognitive dissonances -- one outcome of which may well be a strong and embarrassing urge to giggle. I can't help feeling that much PC wells up from a strong feeling of plain old guilt. All I see holloway has done is stop the suppression mechanism that unconsciously kicks in for the rest of us between "weird (i.e. different) culture tidbit" and "PC-musn't-judge-or-moralise" reflex.

Fascinating. Risky. Splendid.
posted by RichLyon at 1:37 PM on February 7, 2002