Political correctness run amok or legitimate gripe?

[Aelia Jusa]

Here is the scenario.

In the 1920s, there was a footballer named ES Brown. He was white, and with a shock of white blonde hair, which earned him his nickname. He died in the 1970s, and about 40 years ago the football stadium in his hometown of Toowoombah named one of the stands after him, including his nickname. Henceforth the stand has been known as the E.S. '■■■■■■' Brown Stand - his nickname was ■■■■■■, both (or either) because of his white hair (from the custom of nicknaming people opposite to their characteristics, eg a redhead nicknamed Blue), and his use of ■■■■■■ brown shoepolish, NOT supposedly any racistness on his part (though of course one would imagine his racistness would be similar to anyone of 1920s ilk in Australia, that is, quite substantial).

A local Aboriginal Mr. Hagan and his supporters find the sign offensive, and petitioned both the Toowoombah council and the Federal High Court in turn to remove the word ■■■■■■, and both times lost. The Brown family (and I believe the council) argued successfully that while it would be inaapropriate to name the stand that today, 40 years ago it was not, and moreover, it would denigrate both Brown, and the history of football to call it simply the E.S. Brown Stand. Hagan has since taken his case to the United Nations Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, who have recently ruled in his favour, and suggested (I'm not sure how much control they would have, either 'suggesting' or 'demanding') the word's removal, which has been resisted.

So - does Hagan have a real complaint?
Is there any context in which terms like ■■■■■■ are appropriate (or at least, not offensive) to be used, and is this one of them?
Would it be insulting and denigrating to the memory of Brown to rename the stand the E.S. Brown stand?
Does the means by which Brown's nickname came about make a difference?
Do you think that Hagan would be similarly incensed if his nickname had been something less offensive, for example Blackie, or Afro?

[Avatar]

Hi Aelia!!! How are you?

Anyway... I think there is a valid point, if some find it offensive then so will others with good justifiable reasons.

I mean to name a stand ■■■■■■ shows not only bad taste but a lack of consideration and myopic views. Whilst it is true that the footballer's nickname was indeed this, but to call the stand by his full name not only honours him, but also shows consideration for local and global culture and avoids such so easily avoidable issues.

This shows a lack of taste, consideration and common sense. Though hardly intentionally racist, it is an avoidable misunderstanding that begs to be ridiculed.



[ 04-25-2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Avatar ]

[Attalus]

I'll go with Avatar on this issue. I think that renaming the stadium would continue honoring Mr. Brown and avoid giving offense to the Aboriginal Australians (and African-Americans).

[Timber Loftis]

Niggard means stingy, IIRC, and negro is the color black in Spanish. But, the word ■■■■■■ is a slur, with little other use. I'm not exactly "Mr. PC" but this is a stadium name that is pretty hefty in how much baggage it carries along.

[Bruce The Aussie]

i don't see what the whole fuss is about. it was named 40 years ago so, even though it can be taken the wrong way by over sensative people, i'd still keep it for "historical reasons".

[Arledrian]

I think Mr. Hagan should accept that this is in the past. I'd agree with him if this stand had been named recently, but as it stands, I don't think he has a legitimate argument. '■■■■■■' was this man's nickname, and it was an acceptable word decades ago, so to try and go back and change something that is offensive nowadays just seems like a refutation of history. It's like a German trying to eradicate Hitler from the encyclopaedia.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Arledrian: I think Mr. Hagan should accept that this is in the past. I'd agree with him if this stand had been named recently, but as it stands, I don't think he has a legitimate argument. '■■■■■■' was this man's nickname, and it was an acceptable word decades ago, so to try and go back and change something that is offensive nowadays just seems like a refutation of history. It's like a German trying to eradicate Hitler from the encyclopaedia.

But it is not in the past. The sign is still there today in all its glory. What about people who come to Toowoomba who don't know the history, and see that someone called ■■■■■■ has a stand named after him? They will understandably get a very bad impression of our tolerance and sensitivity to racial issues.

Removing the word isn't an eradication of history. People who care to know will know his nickname was ■■■■■■. His exploits would be public record in any number of places, with his nickname, and explanation for it. People who don't care to know won't know, and what will that mean for their appreciation of football's history? Very little. It is nothing like trying to eradicate Hitler's name from the encyclopaedia; there is no call to wipe Brown's nickname from every single public record of it. A better analogy would be if there was a theatre in Germany called the Adolf Hitler Theatre, perhaps with a statue of him in all his glory and there was call to remove that - which would be perfectly reasonable. There is a difference between acknowledging history, and glorifying and celebrating it.

Moreover the acceptability of the term in the past I think is distasteful enough in itself. It was only acceptable because racism, discrimination, and denial of Aboriginal rights and citizenship was acceptable in the past. That is not something we should want to remember fondly.

[Davros]

I am with Aledrian on this.

The word in question is I understand totally banned in usage now in many parts of the world. In fact I would expect nothing but total condemnation of its usage from anyone living inside the US. Rightly so too, and to name a stand or even give that nickname to someone today would be totally unacceptable.

The world was a different place 80 years when Edward Stanley (■■■■■■) Brown played football. Overwhelmingly, the Aussie trend is to have nicknames (even today) and to give them to opposites of characteristics. A big guy would be called "Tiny", a fat guy would be called "Slim", a redhead would be called "Bluey", and back then it wasn't politically incorrect to call an extremely white guy "■■■■■■". The guy was not known by his first name back then - he was known by his nickname. You didn't say "there goes Edward Brown", you said "there goes ■■■■■■ Brown". Even his gravestone reads "Edward Stanley ■■■■■■ Brown".

The usage of this word when in connection with Mr Brown has throughout 80 years of history been devoid of racial connotations. I am in favour of retaining the stand name on a historical basis.

Edit : The reason that this guy was important to the local community of Toowoomba was that he earned the right to represent Australia at Rugby League (toured England) while living and playing in this small town. In 1999 the local community aborigines were asked to vote on the removal of the signs, and the vote came back in favour of retention. I don't know how close the margin was, but obviously there are those that were not prepared to accept that decision and have been fighting court cases since then.

[ 04-25-2003, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Davros ]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Davros: The usage of this word when in connection with Mr Brown has throughout 80 years of history been devoid of racial connotations.

Has it though? The word '■■■■■■' has immediate and hugely offensive connotations, as you've indicated. Yes, historically, and currently, there is no connection to racism and Brown, as in, he wasn't called ■■■■■■ because he hated black people, but usage of the word at all creates racist connotations regardless of its context. Perhaps it is just that it is only now that racism and using such offensive words is unacceptable that people like Hagan feel able to make complaints (and realise that they are entitled to feel offended at all!).

Originally posted by Davros: The world was a different place 80 years when Edward Stanley (■■■■■■) Brown played football. Overwhelmingly, the Aussie trend is to have nicknames (even today) and to give them to opposites of characteristics. A big guy would be called "Tiny", a fat guy would be called "Slim", a redhead would be called "Bluey", and back then it wasn't politically incorrect to call an extremely white guy "■■■■■■". The guy was not known by his first name back then - he was known by his nickname. You didn't say "there goes Edward Brown", you said "there goes ■■■■■■ Brown". Even his gravestone reads "Edward Stanley ■■■■■■ Brown".

Are you saying that if ■■■■■■ was removed from the stand that people would not realise who the stand was named for? I doubt that very much! The fact that that nicknaming people with opposite characteristics was standard practice is irrelevent - Bluey, Tiny and so on aren't offensive terms - ■■■■■■ is. And the fact that it was acceptable to use the term '■■■■■■' in the past as I've said, doesn't make it okay to retain it. The reason it was acceptable was not because it used to be an innocuous term and it is only now that it has gained offensive undertones, but that it was okay to treat black people like non-people and use derogatory terms to refer to them by. ■■■■■■ has always been a term of extreme disrespect, it's only now that we understand treating people with such disrespect is wrong.

[Davros]

I don't disagree with any of your arguments Aelia - they were all thoughtful and well made. I just don't think this case is a simple matter of black and white (pardon the pun) and that there are any easy or simplistic answers. I believe the politically correct world should not be imposing itself on the history of the community of Toowoomba. If the poll of local aborigines was happy with the naming in 1999 then that should have ended the matter. If that poll had come back in favour of changing the name then I would have accepted that too.