|
Posted on 01/04/2006 4:07:04 AM PST by Stoat
|
Andre Nel
Since the victim is white, no hate is involved....impossible. Everyone knows hate only goes in the other direction. Right?
"In the first test in Perth last month, South African players Makhaya Ntini, Justin Prince, Garnett Kruger and Shaun Pollock were taunted in Afrikaans. "
This story is confusing to me. Afrikaans is the Dutch-based language spoken by the whites in South Africa. And the article says they were taunted in Austrailia. Exactly who was taunting this dude?
Okay, who was doing the taunting?
Exactly. And the antiwhite racists in Australia apparently are so comfortable in their views and so fearless of any reprisals that they have no problems with yelling racist epithets while in a huge crowd at a major sporting event.
As is to be expected, the article isn't specific on that point. One is left to assume that it is someone with extreme antiwhite views. Considering the recent race riots in Australia, one might naturally assume that it was someone of a similar perspective as the antiwhite rioters that were recently in the news.
Doing a FR keyword search of "Sydney Riots" might provide some perspective.
"One is left to assume that it is someone with extreme antiwhite views."
I have a problem with making assumptions as to who the taunters were based on an article that is unclear with its information. That's really not a smart thing to do. I have already read about the race riots on FR. I'm going to leave this Andre Nel thing alone until I see the specifics. Many a black person has been accused of race baiting when making assumptions like this? Is it possible this is an example of race baiting on the opposite spectrum?
When information is left out, a natural tendency is to replace what's lacking with a 'best guess' and I've been abundantly clear that this is what I'm putting forth.....nothing more than a best guess based upon recent history. This isn't "bating", it's merely an effort to tound out an incomplete picture; a natural human tendency.
BTW, the antiwhite rioters of recent past were not black, they were largely Lebanese Muslims.
In response to the article...big deal.
I assume that your attitude would be the same if it were a group of white neo-Nazi skinheads yelling racist epithets at a nonwhite sports player in a packed arena during a major sporting event?
BTW, the antiwhite rioters of recent past were not black, they were largely Lebanese Muslims.
Yes, I am aware of the fact that the rioters were Muslims, as I mentioned I read the info here on the FR. I was simply pointing out that, in my opinion, the article was too unclear for anyone to have an accurate response to it.
1. It sounds like one fan.
2.If white people don't understand that black people generally hate their guts, they are delusional. To expect government or some kind of authority to back up a white male in an abusive or hate crime situation they are stupid.
Because I know these things to be true, does that mean I have to hate them back? No. It does mean I need to take each man as a man but also understand that going down to South Oak Cliff may get me killed because I am white. A black man going into Highland Park will not.
I think that the viewers wanted to punish him for being a white South African.
Maybe, but that one fan felt quite comfortable in yelling racist epithets in a packed stadium. Being surrounded by a gang of like-minded comrades helps to embolden people in this way.
2.If white people don't understand that black people generally hate their guts, they are delusional.
I'm not sure how black people got into this matter, as nothing pertaining to black people was mentioned in the article. At any rate, count me as delusional then because I don't go around thinking that way....I take everyone as they come and try to get along with all.
To expect government or some kind of authority to back up a white male in an abusive or hate crime situation they are stupid.
Trying to work out your grammar here.....is it the government that's 'stupid' or someone who expects Government to uphold the law that's stupid?
I expect everyone to be treated equally and if they're not, in the USA we have a thing called the Bill of Rights that the Government is supposed to enforce. Granted, the enforcement of it isn't always perfect, but I would not go so far as to call the expectation of such enforcement as being "stupid".
But that's all irrelevant anyway because this event occurred in Australia.......
Because I know these things to be true, does that mean I have to hate them back? No.
That's good.
It does mean I need to take each man as a man but also understand that going down to South Oak Cliff may get me killed because I am white. A black man going into Highland Park will not.
I'm not sure where those areas are that you refer to, but it sounds to me like a very straightforward recognition of where the high crime areas are.......
John Pye wrote this with the help of twenty or so Fosters.
You're a drinking buddy of his, then? :-)
Too bad the beer ran out when it came time to interview people in the stands regarding what they saw happening.
At least he included a bit of substance of what happened, unlike the Daily Telegraph, which left any mention of a problem until the very last paragraph and then only described it thusly:
"The fiery Nel, who was the target of abuse from fans, finally got his man when he removed Gilchrist to claim his fourth wicket at a cost of 81 runs in 24.1 overs to take the bowling honours for his side."
Afrikaans is also spoken by South African 'Coloureds', mixed race people.
I appreciate your remarks on my grammar. You must be very smart. I am referring to someone who thinks government would ever help them out. I apologize I didn't write clearly enough at 6:30 in the morning.
Just because you expect for Americans to be treated equally doesn't mean its going to happen and people would be wise to understand this. Famous people get special treatment, politicians and rich people get special treatment, even white people get special treatment in many cases when it comes to the judicial system.
Yes, South Oak Cliff has high crime, most of it black on black and due to gang violence and just general thug behavior. The fact that my skin color alone can cause me direct harm in these areas is my point.
I have gone to black schools where my safety was at stake daily and harassment was common even by teachers. My brother was bussed to inner city schools where adults held assemblies and openly mocked the white kids saying, " You're the minority now, how does it feel?" and the crowd would cheer.
I also have a good friend who was beaten very badly after the Rodney King ordeal but his black friend was beaten to death, at school.
I have had many trustworthy black friends, very trustworthy, from the 6th grade to the Army. If you are going into a predominately black neighborhood you better have them there to cover your back, and they will when 80% of the people are looking to kick your ass. that is why I don't say "all blacks are this way or that way" but I also don't hold to some phony ideal of what the world really is.
Finally, I don't hold a kinship to white people either, I would say I hold a kinship to Christian brothers and sisters of every color and I don't find racial epithets to be that offensive. The righteous indignation of hypocrites that think the use of a word gives someone the right to commit a crime against them does
Most likely, former South Africans who moved to Australia. There's quite a significant number of them. While some Australians can be racist at cricket matches, if Afrikaans is involved, it's nearly always a South African immigrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
