A recent discovery suggests humans originated from Greece (and Bulgaria, but who cares about Bulgaria) rather than central Africa. I'd imagine a few of our posters will take a victory lap now ;D
http://www.theage.com.au/world/out-of-africa-earliest-human-actually-came-from-greece-20170524-gwckpe.html (http://www.theage.com.au/world/out-of-africa-earliest-human-actually-came-from-greece-20170524-gwckpe.html)
Yep
Prometheus shaped man out of mud and Athena breathed life into him. ;D
He most likely just ended up in Greece on the first ever solo Contiki tour !!!
Yep
Prometheus shaped man out of mud and Athena breathed life into him. ;D
Is that like Greeks invented sex and the Italians introduced woman?
Is that like Greeks invented sex and the Italians introduced woman?
How about thats going one step too far eh??
I tell you what, If the Greeks were indigenous Australians, how would this comment be viewed??
How about thats going one step too far eh??
I tell you what, If the Greeks were indigenous Australians, how would this comment be viewed??
With a sense of humor? :o
Do you feel denigrated, or are you bitter because it means Italians have twice the sex? ;D
With a sense of humor? :o
Do you feel denigrated, or are you bitter because it means Italians have twice the sex? ;D
No just not enjoying the double standards that seem to apply to taking the piss out of Greeks.
No just not enjoying the double standards that seem to apply to taking the piss out of Greeks.
Are you confusing "double standards" with "any standards".
I'm not sure this site targets anybody specifically, excluding all those associated with CheatsFC.
If you think there is a bias could it be that you are hypersensitive to such commentary?
I have about five different heritages in my bloodlines, starting in Wales(Some claim Ireland but that is disputed.) and ending in Sicily with English, French and Polish in-between. As such I don't identify with any specific culture and I have to say I see no bias whatsoever!
@LP let it go.
@Thry If that old gag caused any offence, I apologise sincerely and unresevedly. I must say, I have repeated that gag in front of my Greek mates and others countless times and I have never had an adverse reaction. That doesnt excuse any offence it may have caused, just putting it into context. Again, sorry.
Sorry to disappoint Blues supporters with Greek heritage but that discovery is just one of many primate ancestors found in Africa, around the Mediterranean and in Asia. It's a side branch or evolutionary dead end and is not ancestral to modern humans.
Sorry to disappoint Blues supporters with Greek heritage but that discovery is just one of many primate ancestors found in Africa, around the Mediterranean and in Asia. It's a side branch or evolutionary dead end and is not ancestral to modern humans.
Other "dead ends" continue to barrack for certain AFL teams we could nominate. :o
@LP let it go.
@Thry If that old gag caused any offence, I apologise sincerely and unresevedly. I must say, I have repeated that gag in front of my Greek mates and others countless times and I have never had an adverse reaction. That doesnt excuse any offence it may have caused, just putting it into context. Again, sorry.
GIC, im a big boy and I can take it so I accept your apology, but I am finding that I am less tolerant of this attitude as I grow older as we were conditioned to accept casual racism in the form of "light hearted humour" and are being told repeatedly that these sorts of comments are off limits towards some ethnic groups and not others these days, so I feel that perhaps these comments are no longer acceptable on any level and that we all need to start cutting this off here. After all, someone goes after the greeks, the greeks then go after another ethnic group and before you know it, we are wondering why comparing Adam Goodes to King Kong is being uttered on radio. You cut off casual racism, and then the real hurtful stuff gets the same treatment.
Sorry to disappoint Blues supporters with Greek heritage but that discovery is just one of many primate ancestors found in Africa, around the Mediterranean and in Asia. It's a side branch or evolutionary dead end and is not ancestral to modern humans.
No dissapointment DJC, that sample may or may not be the missing link, we seem to revise history over and over and over again, and realistically if anyone were to claim that human ancestry began anywhere, hasnt researched the globes history well enough to know that originally the world was one connected land mass. You could find fossils of pre humans in Antarctica FFS.
No dissapointment DJC, that sample may or may not be the missing link, we seem to revise history over and over and over again, and realistically if anyone were to claim that human ancestry began anywhere, hasnt researched the globes history well enough to know that originally the world was one connected land mass. You could find fossils of pre humans in Antarctica FFS.
I took part in an archaeology department function at La Trobe last week and got to see incredibly accurate replicas of hominim/hominid skulls created by laser scanning and 3D printing; the application of cutting edge technology to incredibly ancient fossils :o
I guess the most surprising discoveries in recent times is that other Homo species were around at the same time as modern humans and there was some cohabitation with the DNA of those species persisting in our DNA!
I agree wholeheartedly with you about stopping casual racism Thry.
I agree wholeheartedly with you about stopping casual racism Thry.
I have seen too many individuals labeled racist or discriminatory for purposes of political or personal gain that I will forever remain heavily skeptical. I'm especially skeptical when I see assertions of racism used to influence the arts or political commentary, it goes against free speech.
There is a significant difference between GTC's obviously light-hearted comments and the likes of Pauline Hanson, people are more than capable discerning that difference and more often than not they do so or fail to do so by choice.
Who are we protecting, what are we protecting them from, and how does it help?
I took part in an archaeology department function at La Trobe last week and got to see incredibly accurate replicas of hominim/hominid skulls created by laser scanning and 3D printing; the application of cutting edge technology to incredibly ancient fossils :o
I guess the most surprising discoveries in recent times is that other Homo species were around at the same time as modern humans and there was some cohabitation with the DNA of those species persisting in our DNA!
Do you find any irony in the condemnation of the claims made in Flores, contrasted to the positive commentary around Rising Star and the subsequent Lesedi finds. There seems to be a lot of heavy politicisation of this science, subjectively I see more than I have noticed in other disciplines.
Do you think the race to publish is damaging the research, sensational claims now seem to be a requirement of publication?
We need to agree on a definition of "race" before we can start talking about "racism".
However, having said that, I don't like to hear discriminatory or condescending remarks being made about other groupings of people for just being a member of that grouping or ascribing faults or negative characteristics based on that - except supporters of certain other AFL clubs of course.
We need to agree on a definition of "race" before we can start talking about "racism".
Well of course the accepted understanding of the term racism doesn't just cover race, that is being too literal. I think we have discussed this on the forum once before and playing the devils advocate I raised that very question.
Do we need a term other than racism to describe these other acts or perceptions?
Is the term racism too broadly applied?
I have seen too many individuals labeled racist or discriminatory for purposes of political or personal gain that I will forever remain heavily skeptical. I'm especially skeptical when I see assertions of racism used to influence the arts or political commentary, it goes against free speech.
There is a significant difference between GTC's obviously light-hearted comments and the likes of Pauline Hanson, people are more than capable discerning that difference and more often than not they do so or fail to do so by choice.
Who are we protecting, what are we protecting them from, and how does it help?
Its really simple LP.
The litmus test, on any argument to do with racism, is how this would make someone feel about the comment if it was the first time they had heard it?
Mine is straight to anger, but over the years I have been conditioned to accept this and find that the next generation should not be put through as much. Not because I should, or because its right, but due to it being common place.
Thats not a reason for this stuff to continue. It was once common for people to own slaves. It was also once common for men to beat their wives. Likewise, sometimes things that are uncommon should become more common. I.e. Women getting equal treatment.
Calling someone a spastic or a retard is out.
Calling someone a spear chucker is out.
Using a racial group as the butt of a joke to insinuate that "we are better than you" based purely on ethnic group is out even if that is a "harmless joke".
Perhaps I am a little more sensitive to this because a lot of people from my ethnic background at my demographic have started raising families of their own, and my wife and I are starting that discussion/attempt ourselves, and Ive decided that "the standard I walk past is the standard Im willing to accept" and this means a world, where my little ones wont be made fun of because they are Greek/Portuguese Australians(when we are fortunate to have our own).
GIC only meant it to be some light hearted fun, but after I called him out on it, you chimed in with your own comment, and I only see further comments as an attempt to backpedal somewhat.
If you dont like the term racism, how does casual bigotry sound instead?? Label changed, same outcome.
I thought the birthplace of humanity was another planet about 14.6 light years away? ;)
There needs to be a relationship in place between the joker and the person/audience where the audience, for whatever reason, feels secure that the jokes are genuinely intended for light amusement and not as a slur. Context and relationship are very important. A stand up comic can get away with jokes that none of us ever could for this very reason.
It's part of the complexity of humanity that the same joke, can be seen as funny or racist, depending on the factors above. That's not hypocrisy, that's not double standards.
A stand up comic can get away with jokes that none of us ever could for this very reason.
Yet it's clear that comedians get hauled over the coals on a regular basis for this very issue despite the clear relationship that exists! I suppose you could argue that when you take possession of the ticket you a contract to perceive the performance in a very specific way! Where do we draw the line?
It's part of the complexity of humanity that the same joke, can be seen as funny or racist, depending on the factors above. That's not hypocrisy, that's not double standards.
I agree, but doesn't "seen" by definition imply ambiguity?
Those who "see" like those who "behold" make assumptions about the observations of others.
We need to agree on a definition of "race" before we can start talking about "racism.
All we need is the dictionary definition. This is from the online OED:
Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
‘people of all races, colours, and creeds’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1mass noun The fact or condition of belonging to a racial division or group; the qualities or characteristics associated with this.
Example sentences
1.2 A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.
‘we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.3 A group or set of people or things with a common feature or features.
‘the upper classes thought of themselves as a race apart’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.4Biology A population within a species that is distinct in some way, especially a subspecies.
‘people have killed so many tigers that two races are probably extinct’
More example sentences
1.5 (in non-technical use) each of the major divisions of living creatures.
‘a member of the human race’
‘the race of birds’
More example sentences
1.6literary A group of people descended from a common ancestor.
‘a prince of the race of Solomon’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.7archaic mass noun Ancestry.
‘two coursers of ethereal race’
In other words, both Greeks and Muslims can be described as races for the purposes of defining racism. It isn't limited to Caucasians or Asians, for example.
In fact, in modern times, the idea of humans being divided into genetically discrete races is seen increasingly as an unfortunate mistake which has in fact led to racism. As the ads for Ancestry.com demonstrate, our DNA is usually a mix of influences. I remember seeing US a talk show that had a white supremacist on it and he agreed to a DNA test. He had no fear because he was as white as white can be. Yet the test showed he had a considerable African heritage and he was devastated. Subsequently, he was shunned by other white supremacists :D
Yet it's clear that comedians get hauled over the coals on a regular basis for this very issue despite the clear relationship that exists! I suppose you could argue that when you take possession of the ticket you a contract to perceive the performance in a very specific way! Where do we draw the line?
I agree, but doesn't "seen" by definition imply ambiguity?
Those who "see" like those who "behold" make assumptions about the observations of others.
I'm not sure where you draw the line. In the case of a public performance like a comedy show, I guess if you know the comedian has form, you don't buy a ticket, or just check your phone and zone out when they get to the bits you don't like. I'm not sure.
If it's a one to one situation, just make sure you know the person very well, and if you stuff up, apologise and don't do it again, and pray they forgive you. All easier said then done.
@Mav, does that by definition make a term like "Sexism" redundant because it can be replaced with "Racism"?
Isn't gender an equally valid feature or identity?
What about LGBTI, etc., etc., are they a unique and shared collective quality or identity?
Do you find any irony in the condemnation of the claims made in Flores, contrasted to the positive commentary around Rising Star and the subsequent Lesedi finds. There seems to be a lot of heavy politicisation of this science, subjectively I see more than I have noticed in other disciplines.
Do you think the race to publish is damaging the research, sensational claims now seem to be a requirement of publication?
After 40 years in the field, I'm still amazed at how some folk fight against new discoveries that cast doubt on their work or stated position. We know so little about the past that it is inevitable that theories will be displaced/replaced as new discoveries are made.
The Flores 'hobbits' were caught up in a particularly nasty debate fuelled in part by the megalomania of the head of Indonesian archaeology. Unfortunately, one of the principals of the team passed away before the significance of the finds was confirmed ... until the next discovery!
Publish or perish does play a role but peer review should iron out the more outrageous articles.
Publish or perish does play a role but peer review should iron out the more outrageous articles.
It worries me that so many articles are now published before peer review is completed.
I feel this is a trap that the scientific community is falling into, this new trend in regard to dubious politically focused publications is also a worry. The media assume a publication is a publication, and like opinions they are all equal, when we know they are clearly not!
@Mav, does that by definition make a term like "Sexism" redundant because it can be replaced with "Racism"?
Isn't gender an equally valid feature or identity?
What about LGBTI, etc., etc., are they unique and shared collective quality or identity?
Usually, the general gives way to the specific, so sexism would be used.
In legislation, words are usually defined specifically, so such arguments are avoided. But English is an unregulated language, so ultimately it's how words are used which counts rather than existing dictionary definitions. "Gay" used to mean happy and lively, but now you would rarely use it in that sense when referring to a person.
Is our generation wrecking fun?
I fear we are creating a society that walks all day on eggshells in misery and contempt because of the foibles of language, and I worry it will lead to no good!
Is our generation wrecking fun?
I fear we are creating a society that walks all day on eggshells in misery and contempt because of the foibles of language, and I worry it will lead to no good!
I don't believe this is the case.
Is our generation wrecking fun?
I fear we are creating a society that walks all day on eggshells in misery and contempt because of the foibles of language, and I worry it will lead to no good!
I think fun has a price on it in todays society....more pressures lead to less fun and it becomes a commodity....
All we need is the dictionary definition. This is from the online OED:In other words, both Greeks and Muslims can be described as races for the purposes of defining racism. It isn't limited to Caucasians or Asians, for example.
In fact, in modern times, the idea of humans being divided into genetically discrete races is seen increasingly as an unfortunate mistake which has in fact led to racism. As the ads for Ancestry.com demonstrate, our DNA is usually a mix of influences. I remember seeing US a talk show that had a white supremacist on it and he agreed to a DNA test. He had no fear because he was as white as white can be. Yet the test showed he had a considerable African heritage and he was devastated. Subsequently, he was shunned by other white supremacists :D
So are "race" and "racist" becoming increasingly meaningless when we really mean biased, prejudiced, judgmental, discriminatory, mean spirited, ignorant and plenty of other more meaningful words that can be applied to people callously abusing any number of different groups? I fear "racist" could be becoming just a trite tag that gets trotted out and is starting to gloss over the real motivations that drive it?
Its really simple LP.
The litmus test, on any argument to do with racism, is how this would make someone feel about the comment if it was the first time they had heard it?
Mine is straight to anger, but over the years I have been conditioned to accept this and find that the next generation should not be put through as much. Not because I should, or because its right, but due to it being common place.
Thats not a reason for this stuff to continue. It was once common for people to own slaves. It was also once common for men to beat their wives. Likewise, sometimes things that are uncommon should become more common. I.e. Women getting equal treatment.
Calling someone a spastic or a retard is out.
Calling someone a spear chucker is out.
Using a racial group as the butt of a joke to insinuate that "we are better than you" based purely on ethnic group is out even if that is a "harmless joke".
Perhaps I am a little more sensitive to this because a lot of people from my ethnic background at my demographic have started raising families of their own, and my wife and I are starting that discussion/attempt ourselves, and Ive decided that "the standard I walk past is the standard Im willing to accept" and this means a world, where my little ones wont be made fun of because they are Greek/Portuguese Australians(when we are fortunate to have our own).
GIC only meant it to be some light hearted fun, but after I called him out on it, you chimed in with your own comment, and I only see further comments as an attempt to backpedal somewhat.
If you dont like the term racism, how does casual bigotry sound instead?? Label changed, same outcome.
Understand and accept all that. People however do have different tolerance levels to it. Me for example? Water off a ducks back. I consider myself Australian as I was born here. My heritage is Italian of which am very proud of but I have never said "I am Italian". In fact, whenever I am (or was) asked "Are you Italian", ever since I was kid I answered "No, I'm Australian, born here but my parents are Italian". That's not in any way because I am ashamed of my heritage, on the contrary, I am very proud of it as I am also proud to be Australian. I have experienced what is termed "racism" all my life but I just dont give a fark. Am I thick skinned? Does it not worry me because I think of myself as an "Aussie" as opposed to a "Wog"? No idea. It just doesn't get to me at all. But I do understand that jokes like the one I made are now considered offensive and are a no go. Do I agree with it? No not really. Do I accept it? Of course I do.
So are "race" and "racist" becoming increasingly meaningless when we really mean biased, prejudiced, judgmental, discriminatory, mean spirited, ignorant and plenty of other more meaningful words that can be applied to people callously abusing any number of different groups? I fear "racist" could be becoming just a trite tag that gets trotted out and is starting to gloss over the real motivations that drive it?
Personally, I'd apply 'racist' to derogatory comments regarding somebody's country or region of origin or faith where that is largely linked to the former. When people talk about Muslims, for instance, mostly this refers to Muslims from the Middle East and tends to be another way of saying 'Arabs'. For instance, Mohammad Ali was rarely a target of such comments. I think that Indians and Pakistanis can definitely be racist towards the other. And obviously where someone's appearance is different because of their geographical origins, derogatory comments concerning those differences are racist.
PS: I should say that my comments are in the abstract rather than about GIC's joke. I was dealing more with Trump-style bald-faced racist comments.
Personally, I'd apply 'racist' to derogatory comments regarding somebody's country or region of origin or faith where that is largely linked to the former. When people talk about Muslims, for instance, mostly this refers to Muslims from the Middle East and tends to be another way of saying 'Arabs'. For instance, Mohammad Ali was rarely a target of such comments. I think that Indians and Pakistanis can definitely be racist towards the other. And obviously where someone's appearance is different because of their geographical origins, derogatory comments concerning those differences are racist.
Fair enough. I think of them more as ignorant, petty and small minded.
Understand and accept all that. People however do have different tolerance levels to it. Me for example? Water off a ducks back. I consider myself Australian as I was born here. My heritage is Italian of which am very proud of but I have never said "I am Italian". In fact, whenever I am (or was) asked "Are you Italian", ever since I was kid I answered "No, I'm Australian, born here but my parents are Italian". That's not in any way because I am ashamed of my heritage, on the contrary, I am very proud of it as I am also proud to be Australian. I have experienced what is termed "racism" all my life but I just dont give a fark. Am I thick skinned? Does it not worry me because I think of myself as an "Aussie" as opposed to a "Wog"? No idea. It just doesn't get to me at all. But I do understand that jokes like the one I made are now considered offensive and are a no go. Do I agree with it? No not really. Do I accept it? Of course I do.
All good mate.
This is an extremely mature way for this to play out. No name calling just matter of fact discussion. ????
I also dislike the word wog.
I too have a thick skin. Not all people do and realistically they shouldn't have to have a thick skin.
It's a bit of fun police sort of thing but this is where we are as a society. It's not always mean spirited stuff but that's how it's interpreted some times,and a bit of harmless fun can lead to mental health issues amongst people who can't deal with this stuff.
This debate has come up on numerous occasions on this site.
The way things are going it will create a homogeneous society. Everyone is the same in each and every way and we cannot dare point out any differences in people as it may insult them in doing so.
That person is a wog.
That person has red hair.
That person is fat.
That person is short.
If you work towards fixing the worst areas of discrimination, and continue to do so eventually all of the above comments will be eliminated.
Where do you draw the line?
Not saying what was said should have been said, or should not have. Just pointing out how there is no easy way of working out what is acceptable.
There's a relatively simple way to keep things above board.
If there is little truth in the comment then odds are this comment stems from a place that is just taking the pi55 and is hurtful.
Examples.
water being a Jewish cocktail (yep derogatory, not true potentially mean spirited stems from historical class division).
Someone being fat, thin, red haired et Al. Statement of fact. Context might make comments about them mean spirited, but the comments are descriptive.
Call someone a fat bastard who eats all the pies, mean spirited even if true.
It really isn't hard. before saying anything ask if there is anything mean spirited about the joke. If there is, then odds are it shouldn't be said.
You draw the line where it will cause offense, and if in doubt, leave it out.
Transgressions will occur from time to time, but in general I think people these days understand what is acceptable and what isn't.
There's a relatively simple way to keep things above board.
If there is little truth in the comment then odds are this comment stems from a place that is just taking the pi55 and is hurtful.
Examples.
water being a Jewish cocktail (yep derogatory, not true potentially mean spirited stems from historical class division).
Someone being fat, thin, red haired et Al. Statement of fact. Context might make comments about them mean spirited, but the comments are descriptive.
Call someone a fat bastard who eats all the pies, mean spirited even if true.
It really isn't hard. before saying anything ask if there is anything mean spirited about the joke. If there is, then odds are it shouldn't be said.
Calling someone fat IS descriptive.....but it can also offend them. Is it acceptable?
Lets say you work in a big office. You are trying to describe one of your co-workers to another co-worker.
You: "Do you know Julie? You know, the nice girl who is always here late. She has brown hair. She barracks for Carlton. Has 2 kids. Hangs around with Steve..."
Co-worker: Nah not sure.
You: "She got drunk at the xmas party. Always wears green. blah blah blah"
Co-worker: Still doesn't ring a bell.
You: "You know, the fat one"
Co-worker: Oh yeah, now i know who you are talking about.
What if 'fat Julie' happens to overhear that comment? What is she doing? Going straight to HR and complaining about people calling her fat at work.
Anyone who says its 'simple' to draw a line, is not seeing the whole picture.
In terms of my test, it is truthful and provided it's not mean spirited, as upsetting as it is for someone to be called fat, it's it's not really taboo.
Even then you still probably should bite your tongue.
Everyone knows better than to comment on overweight people as being fat. Some people do have real issues managing their weight.
It's the same with ugly. You don't call someone ugly even if they are. It's hurtful.
Now you have picked two circumstances where my rule falls over somewhat but then you simply have to put yourself in the shoes of the other person and instantly you get a read on if it's ok.
In fact, in modern times, the idea of humans being divided into genetically discrete races is seen increasingly as an unfortunate mistake which has in fact led to racism. As the ads for Ancestry.com demonstrate, our DNA is usually a mix of influences. I remember seeing US a talk show that had a white supremacist on it and he agreed to a DNA test. He had no fear because he was as white as white can be. Yet the test showed he had a considerable African heritage and he was devastated. Subsequently, he was shunned by other white supremacists :D
I took one of those DNA tests.
Received the results back last week.
Based on known family history I was guessing it would come back something along the lines of 40% Irish 60% Great Britain
Here's what actually happened.
Ireland -51%
Western Europe (Belgium, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Germany Luxembourg, Liechtenstein)- 31%
Scandinavian (Norway, Sweden, Denmark)- 7%
European Jewish (Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary)- 6%
Great Britain (England, Scotland Wales)- 2%
Iberian peninsula (Spain Portugal)- 1%
Finland/Russia <1%
West Asia (Caucasus) Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey)<1%
You may not be who you think you are ;)
In terms of my test, it is truthful and provided it's not mean spirited, as upsetting as it is for someone to be called fat, it's it's not really taboo.
Even then you still probably should bite your tongue.
Everyone knows better than to comment on overweight people as being fat. Some people do have real issues managing their weight.
It's the same with ugly. You don't call someone ugly even if they are. It's hurtful.
Now you have picked two circumstances where my rule falls over somewhat but then you simply have to put yourself in the shoes of the other person and instantly you get a read on if it's ok.
Social convention suggests you shouldn't.....but social conventions change. A few decades ago racist slurs were commonplace.
A few decades from now will calling people fat be as off-limits as racism is now? Who can say.
Look at the past. Compare it to now. Predict the future.
Its a changing landscape. 'Fix the worst bits' and repeat. Thing is, there will ALWAYS be a new 'worst bit' until you reach perfection.
Unfortunately, the worst bits have exploded through social media and the ease of anonymity and lack of consequence for things that shouldn't be written.