I really don't have a problem with what Seau said, but I think we all know damn well that if Jay Fiedler had made these comments he'd be in deep doo doo:

Fried Chicken and Watermelon???? (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1644266)

What really surprises me is that I hadn't heard the story before I logged on and read the post. When Rush made his fair (and in my opinion, correct) comment concerning McNabb, it was the top story across the country. Yet Seau's comment has been largely ignored by the mainstream media.

Well, I think the unofficial rule is that it's not considered wrong to make racist remarks about your own race. That principle is not really restricted to race either. For instance, if you're fat, you have some right to make fun of fat people if you want.

Rush wasn't wrong, & neither was Jimmy the Greek. The only problem with either of those men is their skin color. White folks aren't allowed to make any kind of remarks without being branded racists.

No, I do not agree with all of you (surprised ?). Because precisely the fact that one belongs to the group he is criticizing (or making fun of) prevents the interpretation of what he says / write as racist. But when you do not belong to a group and criticize it, even if you are not against the group, you have to be much more cautious because what you say may be interpreted as offensive.

I have been experiencing this in All Forums. Being french, many of my critics against Bush and the US govt have led people to tab ma as "anti american". If I had been american, most people would not have thought this ( I guess They would have tabbed me as liberal a**hole anyway). Because when you are not part of the group you are talking about, you may easily be suspect of being against it.

Originally posted by astrapol2
But when you do not belong to a group and criticize it, even if you are not against the group, you have to be much more cautious because what you say may be interpreted as offensive.

Agreed, but that's a bad thing, don't you think? Shouldn't people look at the substance and intent of what is said rather than the race of the person saying it?

Because when you are not part of the group you are talking about, you may easily be suspect of being against it.

Quite true, and quite unfortunate.

Eh, reverse discrimination. Would have thought you would all be used to it by now. ;)

It's not fair, but it's just how it seems to be. We do it too... friends (who are all caucasian) will tease each other with "Honkey", but wouldn't dare tease someone of a different ethnicity with "Nigger" or the equivalent.

To be honest, I almost wish they would. That would at least mean that we're a fraction less blinded by color.

Originally posted by LionelHutz

Agreed, but that's a bad thing, don't you think? Shouldn't people look at the substance and intent of what is said rather than the race of the person saying it?

That is a bad thing, but on the other way, people who speak publicly should be aware of this.

I occasionnally tell bad taste jokes to my friends, because this is private and I know that they cannot believe I am sexist, racist or homophobic. But when I speak or write for the public, or to people i do not know well, I am very cautious because I just do not want to offend them.

I have learnt this from many mistakes. I like to joke and have been committing many big mistakes that let me shameful afterwards (like joking about dead babies in front of people who had lost their baby a few years before).

Now I try to be extra cautious !

Hmmm, Lionel, you said: "Imagine if a white person said this..."

That would seem ta imply that... Michael Jackson... should avoid makin' such "doo doo" quotes... (at least, now that he's become a... pale... imitation of his younger self... ;) )

Seriously, I believe INTENT is what SHOULD matter... But, ta be truthful, if ya don't really know the speaker that well, intent may be rather hard ta ascertain... Therefore, caution SHOULD be the rule...

Good topic, Lionel...

Originally posted by In Odder Words

Seriously, I believe INTENT is what SHOULD matter... But, ta be truthful, if ya don't really know the speaker that well, intent may be rather hard ta ascertain... Therefore, caution SHOULD be the rule...


I agree. And furthermore, the intent is not always so easy to know. A certain far-right french politician, Le Pen, keeps on making racist and more specifically antisemitic jokes. Whenever asked about these, he says "oh no, I am absolutely not racist. These are just jokes !".
Should we believe him and consider that there is no racist intent, or understand these jokes as a way of getting the extremists' sympathy without taking explicit fascist positions which could be politically dangerous for his more moderate suporters ?

There is a distinct difference between statements made by Rush Limbaugh and Jimmy the Greek saying what they did about black sportsmen, and the antisemitic barbs tossed with regularity by a frog politician. In the U.S., those making the statements to the public were immediately censured by their employers, and summarily fired from their positions. Any discussions regarding those comments being seen as racist or factual were decidedly short-lived.
What happens in frog land? Well, apparently nothing to dissuade their media from continuing to pay attention to the acknowledged antisemitic/ racist comments from some back alley politician.
Do you really need to ask why a La Rouche gets publicity in frog land when here in the U.S. only his death would merit public acknowledgement?

Now if that frog politician turned comedian & went to Vegas, he just might make a few $$.