Discussion:
Why would one black man call another black man a monkey?
(too old to reply)
Rats
2008-01-10 01:24:03 UTC
Permalink
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Dave -Turner
2008-01-10 01:36:29 UTC
Permalink
uhhh, racism doesnt just boil down to white vs black.
n***@yahoo.com
2008-01-10 02:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave -Turner
uhhh, racism doesnt just boil down to white vs black.
No, he's suggesting that an Indian (Black) cannot racially insult
another Black (Symonds). Apart from the fact that Indians are more
brown than black, if Symonds feels a particular insult is racist, ergo
it is. End of story.

Satya
Dave -Turner
2008-01-10 03:12:55 UTC
Permalink
I know what he's suggesting, the simple fact is it's wrong. Racism is about
race, not just the colour of ones skin.
D Ramapriya
2008-01-10 04:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave -Turner
I know what he's suggesting, the simple fact is it's wrong. Racism is about
race, not just the colour of ones skin.
While I don't disagree, now that I'm out here in a multracial
environment where it's easier to fathom how various people feel about
certain matters, what you've stated is at the root of most of the
current misunderstanding about the m-word. I've been trying hard to
convince the Oz and other posters here that FWIW, in India, racism is
limited to black v white and such stuff, not anything else such as
ethnicities within a certain broad brush race. Calling someone a
'monkey' in India only means that the cove acts like - and probably
looks like - one, but has no racial connotation whatsoever.

Ramapriya
dechucka
2008-01-10 02:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
When is school going back so you can spend time taking photos instead of
boring this ng
Rats
2008-01-10 02:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
When is school going back so you can spend time taking photos instead of
boring this ng
Australian speech sense make?
dechucka
2008-01-10 05:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
When is school going back so you can spend time taking photos instead of
boring this ng
Australian speech sense make?

read slowly and ask your English teacher to help
shineything
2008-01-10 06:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by dechucka
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
When is school going back so you can spend time taking photos instead of
boring this ng
This whole ng is extraordinarily boring right now. In that context,
Rats's question was actually a beacon of light. A small beacon yes,
but a beacon nevertheless.
Macjoubert
2008-01-10 03:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
This might come as a rude shock to you but anthropologically Indians
and by inclusion people of Pakistan Afghanistan are not Black which i
take you mean to associate with Negroid.
In turn they are Caucasoid a sub family of the Caucasian race.

Caucasian is not meant to associate with Whiteness but having
orginating from the Caucasus range in Armenia.
qarnos
2008-01-10 03:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Macjoubert
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
This might come as a rude shock to you but anthropologically Indians
and by inclusion people of Pakistan Afghanistan are not Black which i
take you mean to associate with Negroid.
In turn they are Caucasoid a sub family of the Caucasian race.
Caucasian is not meant to associate with Whiteness but having
orginating from the Caucasus range in Armenia.
You mean there's no such place as Caucasia?

Well, I'll be damned.
eusebius
2008-01-10 06:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by qarnos
Post by Macjoubert
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
This might come as a rude shock to you but anthropologically Indians
and by inclusion people of Pakistan Afghanistan are not Black which i
take you mean to associate with Negroid.
In turn they are Caucasoid a sub family of the Caucasian race.
Caucasian is not meant to associate with Whiteness but having
orginating from the Caucasus range in Armenia.
You mean there's no such place as Caucasia?
Well, I'll be damned.
There is. Its around the Caucasus. Beyond the Caucasus, is
'Transcaucasia'. Ironically, the Caucasian peoples themselves, are
said to speak languages of a different family than Indo-European,
although I believe ethnolinguists are somewhat divided on this point
(whether there is a familial relationship between Caucasian languages
and Indo-European). The Georgian (or Kartvelian), and Chechen
languages are reckoned amongst the 'Caucasian'.
Macjoubert
2008-01-10 14:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by eusebius
Post by qarnos
Post by Macjoubert
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
This might come as a rude shock to you but anthropologically Indians
and by inclusion people of Pakistan Afghanistan are not Black which i
take you mean to associate with Negroid.
In turn they are Caucasoid a sub family of the Caucasian race.
Caucasian is not meant to associate with Whiteness but having
orginating from the Caucasus range in Armenia.
You mean there's no such place as Caucasia?
Well, I'll be damned.
There is. Its around the Caucasus. Beyond the Caucasus, is
'Transcaucasia'. Ironically, the Caucasian peoples themselves, are
said to speak languages of a different family than Indo-European,
although I believe ethnolinguists are somewhat divided on this point
(whether there is a familial relationship between Caucasian languages
and Indo-European). The Georgian (or Kartvelian), and Chechen
languages are reckoned amongst the 'Caucasian'.
Due to heavy admixture and overlordship of Turkic people many speak
languages that are heavily influenced by Turkic and Altaic roots.
An e.g. of this is Ajarian, a totally Georgian race they embraced
Islam under the Ottomans and their language is now heavily Turkic and
by religious extension Arabic.
Circassians, Chechens, Ossetians and a few other so called mountain
people are the only remnants of the original Caucasoid.
eusebius
2008-01-11 01:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Macjoubert
Post by eusebius
Post by qarnos
Post by Macjoubert
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
This might come as a rude shock to you but anthropologically Indians
and by inclusion people of Pakistan Afghanistan are not Black which i
take you mean to associate with Negroid.
In turn they are Caucasoid a sub family of the Caucasian race.
Caucasian is not meant to associate with Whiteness but having
orginating from the Caucasus range in Armenia.
You mean there's no such place as Caucasia?
Well, I'll be damned.
There is. Its around the Caucasus. Beyond the Caucasus, is
'Transcaucasia'. Ironically, the Caucasian peoples themselves, are
said to speak languages of a different family than Indo-European,
although I believe ethnolinguists are somewhat divided on this point
(whether there is a familial relationship between Caucasian languages
and Indo-European). The Georgian (or Kartvelian), and Chechen
languages are reckoned amongst the 'Caucasian'.
Due to heavy admixture and overlordship of Turkic people many speak
languages that are heavily influenced by Turkic and Altaic roots.
An e.g. of this is Ajarian, a totally Georgian race they embraced
Islam under the Ottomans and their language is now heavily Turkic and
by religious extension Arabic.
It is true that (this is now very OT and that) the Ajarians' Caucasian
culture was pretty well subsumed by Ottoman influence, although their
'Georgianness' is beginning to reassert itself. I believe the Abkhaz
were also strongly influenced by the Ottomans, although they are
apparently pursuing a completely seperate identity (at least
politically)
Post by Macjoubert
Circassians, Chechens, Ossetians and a few other so called mountain
people are the only remnants of the original Caucasoid.
Caucasoid and Caucasian are different things. I am considered
Caucasoid but not Caucasian. I don't believe it is credible to suggest
that the Caucasian, ie Kartvelian (Georgian) and related tribes are
the progenitors of the Indo-Europeans, although they may be one of the
major offshoots of the original Indo-European tribe.
The Ossetians are not a Caucasian people, except geographically. They
are apparently related to the ancient Alans (not Knott) and are an
Iranian people speaking an Iranian language (ie, related to Persian).
Circassian I believe was a more inclusive term, almost interchangeable
for 'Muslim Caucasian', although Circassian/Cherkess/Adyge is another
of the 'Caucasian nations' like Georgian, Chechen, Ingush, Daghestani,
Kabardin etc.
Rats
2008-01-10 04:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Macjoubert
This might come as a rude shock to you but anthropologically Indians
and by inclusion people of Pakistan Afghanistan are not Black which i
take you mean to associate with Negroid.
In turn they are Caucasoid a sub family of the Caucasian race.
Caucasian is not meant to associate with Whiteness but having
orginating from the Caucasus range in Armenia.
Where did I mention caucasian or caucasoid in my post?
eusebius
2008-01-10 06:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Macjoubert
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
This might come as a rude shock to you but anthropologically Indians
and by inclusion people of Pakistan Afghanistan are not Black which i
take you mean to associate with Negroid.
In turn they are Caucasoid a sub family of the Caucasian race.
Caucasoid is the race, not a sub-family of any race. The term 'race'
is indeed disputed by many revisionist biologists now, who feel that
by 'scientifically explaining away' genetic differences, that racial
conflict will somehow disappear.
Post by Macjoubert
Caucasian is not meant to associate with Whiteness but having
orginating from the Caucasus range in Armenia.
That is one theory, that the original Indo-European language, from
which so-called 'Indo-Aryan' languages, and English, and many others,
proceeded, originated in the Caucasus region (straddling the border
between Russia and the Republic of Georgia, not Armenia).
The Dravidian languages of India have other origins, although they
have been influenced by 'Aryan' (ie Indo-European) speech.
The aboriginal peoples of India were at one point linked racially with
the aboriginal peoples of Australia, and considered a seperate race,
the 'Australoid'. There is indeed a morphological similarity between
the 2 groups, (and possibly even linguistic) and not much between them
and, say Punjabis like Harbhajan
Bob Dubery
2008-01-10 03:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Racism is more complex than that.

My neighbours on both sides are Indian. One of them recently had no
trouble at all in telling me that my gardener is a "stupid fucking
kaffir". It's quite possible for people like that to take the attitude
that there's a difference between having a dark skin and having
negroid features.

Before you start telling me that this doesn't seem very logical, I'm
not saying that it is. I'm just saying that racism is not just a
simple case of whites looking down at anybody with a darker skin.
ShowsOn
2008-01-10 04:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Racism is more complex than that.
My neighbours on both sides are Indian. One of them recently had no
trouble at all in telling me that my gardener is a "stupid fucking
kaffir". It's quite possible for people like that to take the attitude
that there's a difference between having a dark skin and having
negroid features.
So are they Muslim? I thought Kaffir is a term used by Muslims to
denigrate anyone who isn't a true Muslim (i.e. not JUST non-Muslims, but
even people who are Muslim, but not from the right Muslim sect).
Rats
2008-01-10 04:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ShowsOn
So are they Muslim? I thought Kaffir is a term used by Muslims to
denigrate anyone who isn't a true Muslim (i.e. not JUST non-Muslims, but
even people who are Muslim, but not from the right Muslim sect).
I think Bob might be a yaapie and in yaapland the term kaffir was used
to refer to blacks.
ShowsOn
2008-01-10 11:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rats
Post by ShowsOn
So are they Muslim? I thought Kaffir is a term used by Muslims to
denigrate anyone who isn't a true Muslim (i.e. not JUST non-Muslims, but
even people who are Muslim, but not from the right Muslim sect).
I think Bob might be a yaapie and in yaapland the term kaffir was used
to refer to blacks.
Looks like it has all sorts of uses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir

This is the one I was thinking of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafir
Rats
2008-01-10 04:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Racism is more complex than that.
My neighbours on both sides are Indian. One of them recently had no
trouble at all in telling me that my gardener is a "stupid fucking
kaffir". It's quite possible for people like that to take the attitude
that there's a difference between having a dark skin and having
negroid features.
Before you start telling me that this doesn't seem very logical, I'm
not saying that it is. I'm just saying that racism is not just a
simple case of whites looking down at anybody with a darker skin.
Where the hack do you live?
Sceptical1
2008-01-10 08:52:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Racism is more complex than that.
My neighbours on both sides are Indian.
SNIPPED

I'd move house....whats it smell like there around dinner time?
Madhav
2008-01-10 22:14:24 UTC
Permalink
"Sceptical1" <***@suxs.com> wrote in message news:4785dcb7$0$26468$***@news.optusnet.com.au...
x>
Post by Sceptical1
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Racism is more complex than that.
My neighbours on both sides are Indian.
SNIPPED
I'd move house....whats it smell like there around dinner time?
Your mom's cunt, Sceptical aka Will_S
Thunnus Albacarus
2008-01-11 01:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madhav
x>
Post by Sceptical1
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Racism is more complex than that.
My neighbours on both sides are Indian.
SNIPPED
I'd move house....whats it smell like there around dinner time?
Your mom's cunt, Sceptical aka Will_S
FFS Madhav yer a white man. (Now theres a racist remark if ever i made one)
Robert
2008-01-11 09:38:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 01:36:41 +0000 (UTC), Thunnus Albacarus
x>
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense.
No. Why would anyone want to insult a poor harmless monkey.

pash4life1973
2008-01-10 11:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Dubery
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Racism is more complex than that.
My neighbours on both sides are Indian. One of them recently had no
trouble at all in telling me that my gardener is a "stupid fucking
kaffir". It's quite possible for people like that to take the attitude
that there's a difference between having a dark skin and having
negroid features.
Before you start telling me that this doesn't seem very logical, I'm
not saying that it is. I'm just saying that racism is not just a
simple case of whites looking down at anybody with a darker skin.
nobody is suggesting indians are never racist...well if they are they
are pretty stupid...

but leaving the fact the Symonds felt hurt by the term (ok its a
pretty big pont).

theres a lot of evidence to suggest that the term monkey is not
racist. Indians call each other monkey all the time...as a petty
demeaning comment and insult...yes...racist? i dont think so.

so in essence this pretty much boils down to ONE thing, the point that
Symonds was hurt by it and insisted it not be used. None of us have
any idea how emphatically the indians were told of this...if you
believe the aussies, they almost all were forced to sign a written
declaration that they would not use this term.

whether the aussies would have reciprocated, if it were the other way
around....hmmmmm...??
ShowsOn
2008-01-10 12:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by pash4life1973
theres a lot of evidence to suggest that the term monkey is not
racist. Indians call each other monkey all the time...as a petty
demeaning comment and insult...yes...racist? i dont think so.
Playing this game of semantic cultural relativism is going to leave a
lot of people open to racial abuse.
pash4life1973
2008-01-10 14:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ShowsOn
Post by pash4life1973
theres a lot of evidence to suggest that the term monkey is not
racist. Indians call each other monkey all the time...as a petty
demeaning comment and insult...yes...racist? i dont think so.
Playing this game of semantic cultural relativism is going to leave a
lot of people open to racial abuse.
and reducing racism to plain and simple name-calling demeans the
devastating impact it can have.
ShowsOn
2008-01-10 14:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by pash4life1973
Post by ShowsOn
Post by pash4life1973
theres a lot of evidence to suggest that the term monkey is not
racist. Indians call each other monkey all the time...as a petty
demeaning comment and insult...yes...racist? i dont think so.
Playing this game of semantic cultural relativism is going to leave a
lot of people open to racial abuse.
and reducing racism to plain and simple name-calling demeans the
devastating impact it can have.
Where did I do that? Go on, show me.
Kim
2008-01-10 04:34:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:24:03 -0800 (PST), Rats
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Used in the US a lot by white dickheads like the KKK who use the term
to call a black man a monkey.
sdavmor
2008-01-10 21:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kim
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 17:24:03 -0800 (PST), Rats
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Used in the US a lot by white dickheads like the KKK who use the term
to call a black man a monkey.
"Nigger" has become almost a greeting amongst young African-American
males in SoCal,and I presume elsewhere in urban America. It's almost a
badge of being in the club from the hood in greater Los Angeles. As in
"hey nigger!", "how's it hanging, nigger?", "nigger said this, nigger
said that", etc. They take no offense when they use it towards each
other because it's totally removed from a context in which it would be
offensive -- such as if I were say it. Ditto "monkey". Were I to use
either term in reference to a "black" man in the states I would fully
expect to get my nose flattened -- deservedly so.

Having said that, as I look at this from different angles, I can see a
parallel to where Indians not living in a forced multi-cultural
situation (i.e. California, South Africa) might be very puzzled why
another person of colour (to use proper US PC terms) could be offended
at being called a monkey. The context of use, plus tone of voice,
attitude, etc., can all give or take weight from something said. The
first Symonds/Singh incident may be one of those unfortunate accidents
of speech and context colliding where no real offense was meant but
some genuine offense was taken. However, after Symonds and Singh
talked about the issue (in India) Singh certainly could not be under
any misconception as to the degree of offense Symonds would take at
being called a monkey were it to happen again.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
MySpace MP3s <www.myspace.com/systemstheory>
CDBaby <www.cdbaby.com/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming Xmas 2007
NP: nothing
Madhav
2008-01-10 05:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense.
It doesnt make sense because it is NOT RACIST.
Post by Rats
It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Kim Barnett Jnr.
2008-01-10 05:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Indian Sardhars DO NOT HAVE a thing called a BRAIN !

FULLSTOP. (no need to argue or explain.....)
Madhav
2008-01-10 10:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kim Barnett Jnr.
Indian Sardhars DO NOT HAVE a thing called a BRAIN !
If your mom and dad had brains, they would have used
condoms or aborted you.
Post by Kim Barnett Jnr.
FULLSTOP. (no need to argue or explain.....)
PERIOD (Your mom's)
Will_S
2008-01-10 06:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rats
It doesn't make sense. It's like calling each other the "N" word. Now
if a white man was to call a black man the "N" word than that is
racist.
Because in India it was explained to Singh that using the monkey word was
making "blacks " sub-human. Something along those lines and Singh agreed not
to call him a monkey again and apologized.

Didnt last long did it ?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...