Because his hair has nothing to do with his race, obviously.

Last I checked Jamaica is not a race.

If he was jamaican would calling him a jamaican dog be racist? Im going with yes. Then again would anyone in this forum feel racially abused if they were called an Australian dog?

Jamaicans are not a race of people.

'Jamaican isn't a race' - neither is black.

Why is this racism? Title should be "man heckles athlete's choice of hairstyle by using pop-culture reference".

To not find it racist you'd have to be a real moron...

Mills Twitter:
"I am a proud Islander. Like my Jamaican Brothers, me and my family in the islands of the Torres Strait have experienced racial slurs for decades. Hope (we can) enlighten this confused, hateful fan."

Would we also cry racism when there are heckles that reference "a dingo ate my baby", or "that's not a knife, *this* is a knife"? That also combines a silly pop-culture reference that has become associated with people from an island nation. Should Baynes cry racism when there are heckles that reference Vikings?

I have great admiration for Mills, but I think he is off the mark here.

Two things.
Was he calling him Dog or Dawg?
Calling somebody a "dog" is a put-down, and could be racist depending on the adjective.
ie, if calling somebody a "X" is an insult, then calling somebody a "Black X" is usually racist.
So referencing "Jamaican", which most people associate with people of colour, does tend to imply a racial basis.
But the other question I would ask, is whether he was heckling other players equally?

People do need to understand that the equation is not equal. Black people, including American Blacks, Jamaicans, and Indigenous Australians have been abused and discriminated against for centuries. White people generally have not.
Even those of Mills generation would have copped some crap growing up because of the colour of his skin.

And at the end of the day, Mills has expressed a desire to enlighten the fan. Hardly stirring the pot. It's not as though he's calling for a lifetime ban.

Thank you D2.0, it frustrates me to no end when i hear "that's not racist" and countless ridiculous comparisons to quell the cry of racism.

There is a lot of racism in the world and it often comes out when people are frustrated, for example when your high performing team are down to the Spurs!

This guy was heckling and chose the "go back where you came from route" although he didn't do very good research.

I am not interested in speculating why he chose to call him a "Jamaican" dog, i am fairly certain however he was calling him a dog, not "dawg" as some have speculated the heckler was saying, colloquially.

I am sorry, but it doesn't take a genius to work out the man on the sideline was taunting Mills and the words he used to do so were chosen instinctively and are racist in context.

It DOES mean it is racist. That is exactly what racism is FFs.
It was direct, verbal racism. It was yelling out to degrade a person of colour and referring to them as a dog, whilst at it.

You don't understand as you highly likely have never felt the effects of racism.

Firstly, if you single out a person because of their race, that's racism regardless of what you call them. (Which is why I asked whether he was heckling other Spurs equally.)

Next, it doesn't matter if it's a "pop-culture reference," if it is racially based. ie why was that specific reference chosen?

Calling a white person "Irish" is not the same. For starters, "Irish" is not a slur.
Calling a Chinese person "Chinese" is not a slur, but calling them a "Slope" or a "Chink" is!
(Maybe there's an equivalent slur for Irish people, but I'm not aware of it.)
Calling Mills "Jamaican" would just be ignorant, but calling him a "Dog" tends to make that into a slur.

And as I said, the two sides of the coin are not equal. What we share in common with the USA is that we treated Black people like shit for 200 years. So I think they're allowed to be a bit more sensitive about racial issues.

this forum just proves Australia racist for sure

So what I get from all this is :

- Heckle a person of colour, eg a dog, its racism.

- Heckle a white person, its a Tuesday.

Maybe this will be the thread where white people can finally agree on what other races should find racist/offensive.

FWIW I don't think it was racist either on the surface, but have no idea what the person who said it thinks. I can also see why others might disagree. If you think you are going to solve this issue here though, maybe try religion and politics next.

Why do people feel the need to yell out stupid shit?

Would it be racist to suggest that all white people are American rednecks dogs?

I'd suggest that the heckler assumed that Mills was African-American, and linked that to Jamaican (historically and genetically linked by the slave trade of the Americas). Probably because of his hair. Global affairs and Geography are not strong points in American education at school or college level.

This stuff happens, I had a cousin from Mauritius who had braids. A lot of people assumed she was American and couldn’t judge her accent. When she returned to Mauritius as an adult the locals assumed she was some kind of Rastafarian.

It’s ok to make a mistake about someone’s background or culture (or you could ask them nicely when possible) but attaching "dog" to your opinion of where they’re from is probably racist and definitely offensive. If you had an open mind and asked someone about their background, you’d be unlikely to attach the word “dog” to your description.

TLDR= fan def offensive and ignorant, probs racist too.

Is it really necessary to leap to racism when there is a far more obvious explanation? Let me break this down for all those who still insist on calling it racist:

Usually hecklers want to either put the player off or say something humourous. While I think not many would find it funny, he was obviously using the "'X' called, they want their 'Y' back" joke formula, where Y is linked to X in some way. The X being "Jamaica" (it doesn't take a genius to see the Jamaica reference was connected to his hairstyle in this game), the Y being "bobsledder" as a pop culture reference, topical with the winter Olympics on.

Look at the way the fan repeated the joke attempt, realising that the joke formula should begin with "X called". The only ambiguity is the use of "dog/dawg"; whether it was to get attention, to insult, or simply to extend the Jamaican reference where "dawg" can be used in place of "friend": http://jamaicanpatwah.com/term/Dawg/1121#.WpVIuehuY2w

Regardless, it is difficult to see how that one word makes his statement racist.

Is this really so difficult to comprehend all of this without needing to rely on racism as an explanation? Good for anyone who wants to spotlight and eliminate racism, but it is better to do so on actual racism.

Rightfully so and good on the Cavs for banning the racist.

A real shame a few Hoops commentators instead of getting stuck into this idiot have spent most of this thread defending his racist behaviour. At least NBA teams know and understand what racism is and as Patty alluded to in his tweet some Australians still have a long way to go.

Mills' classy response to the incident has earned widespread praise and it coincided with Mills visiting the San Antonio Museum of Art on Tuesday as part of Black History Month in the United States.

"You always take the high road ... last night's incident is something that's not new to me," Mills told reporters.

"I've ignited a lot of stuff growing up as an indigenous Australian and over here in the NBA as well.

"I think it's fair to say I've been called a lot worse, but it was a small example to shine light on the fact racism still exists in sport today.

"We as a whole can do a lot more to be in a situation like today and educate kids to be proud of who they are and where they come from and have the feeling inside to be able to express all of that."

Mills' mother Yvonne is Aboriginal and was part of the stolen generation. His father, Benny, is a Torres Strait Islander.

Mills was recognised at the NAIDOC awards last year as the person of the year and he has become one of Australia's leading indigenous role models.

What, none of these "RACIST!!!11" advocates have replied to my analysis of the taunt? Instead, not only are we all supposed to believe the circular argument that it is racist because it is racist, but this is meant to be a broader argument that says something about Australian culture?

This thread, if anything, is an example of racism today: racism comes from a gut feeling, partly based on being subjected to racism in the past, rather than understanding the nuance of language and understanding actual meaning and intent and context in specific cases.

It's the dumbing-down of important social issues. It is easiest to automatically label a taunt racist, don't worry about type 2 errors.

None of what you wrote dealt with facts, which is probably why no one responded to your hypothesis of what happened.

The Spurs dealt with it by suspending the fan indefinitely. They dealt with the facts.

Look it up. It's all there. Listen to what the people involved have said. Learn.

That's because they don't need to spell it out.

snooch, I referenced all the facts on hand.

The exact taunt comprising
- the joke formula "'X' called, they want their 'Y' back", a joke that is often used on style choices. The fan even repeated the joke with a slight change to align itself with this familiar formula.
- the "Jamaica" reference has been explained (did you actually see his hairstyle? Or is this connection the supposed racist element?)
- in the context of the joke formula referencing Jamaica, the "bobsledder" reference makes sense, especially with the Winter Olympics running at the time.
- dog/dawg is disputable and by no means indicative of racist behaviour. While it is difficult to know what he exactly meant by dog or dawg, I even provided a link that suggests "dawg" is a Jamaican colloquial equivalent to "friend". Is there any benefit of the doubt deserving here, or let's instead conclude the more serious allegation?

From Mills' perspective, he has admitted to being subjected to racist taunts in the past. He is clearly offended and interpreted it as racist. Does that make it true?

What "facts" am I missing here, snooch?

All of them. Clearly

I'm sorry, snooch, I wouldn't have ever referenced your name in my post had I known, at the time, you were such a moron.

I'm not going to argue with people who are being disingenuous.

You know all know why it was racist. Everyone know why it was racist. The fact you are trying so vehemently to deny it was says more about you than me.

Ignore them Scooch they're just trolling.

The Cavs did the right thing in giving this guy a 12 month ban.

If it had just been "Jamaica just called - they want their bobsledder back" then I'd say there's ambiguity there and just as likely to be a dumb hair style comment as a comment with any racial intent.
But "Jamaican dog"? I don't see any plausible excuse for that one.

Anon you seem to think you've got some sort of "gotcha" moment going on here. You don't. It's pretty cut and dried why it's racism, and I'm sure you know it.

"But "Jamaican dog"? I don't see any plausible excuse for that one."

At least here we have a specific citation.

Let's ignore the possibility -- especially in context -- that he used the word "dawg", and assume he said "dog" in a pejorative manner. Let's even assume he said "dog" to put him down or to insult, which is no certainty at all, especially when used with such a stock standard joke, which, with repetition, seemed to be the emphasis.

Is the use of "dog" inherently racist, or racist when combined with a nationality, or racist when combined with a *particular* nationality? Would "Australian dog" have been racist? Are we meant to interpret "Jamaican" to be a substitute for a particular race or skin colour? Or "dog" is racist when the target is a particular race or skin colour?

It is all so easy when racism becomes a case of "i just know it when i see it", but let's inject some logic and reason into this, even if some idiots think reason and analysis is "trolling".


If you can't back up your opinion with actual reason, maybe it is time to reassess your beliefs.

I think just about anything can be conveniently explained away if one tries hard enough.
If I call someone a Black C*nt then am I being racist? I mean he's just some guy who IMO is acting like a c*nt, and he happens to be black. If I call Patty Mills a strong black man is that racist?

To me, as soon as someone feels the need to combine a race/nationality reference with their insult of choice (in this case, dog), then they've shown their true colours, so to speak.

Just my take.

Still waiting on scooch and Zodiac to explain why it is racist.

rjd meanwhile has explained himself to the nth degree. Good job.

"To me, as soon as someone feels the need to combine a race/nationality reference with their insult of choice (in this case, dog), then they've shown their true colours, so to speak."

Good to see someone suggesting it is racist display some reasoning. Am I right to say that your argument is that it was the first two words that were racist, whereas the joke alone was not?

Is what you have described racism or just an nationality-based insult? I'm still not sure where the racial element appears. Is it in an assumption that only certain races can have that kind of hairstyle, so mocking it is racist?

Do you think the context matters in this case? Does the need to attribute Mills as Jamaican, as a context for the joke, matter at all? Or should we simply attribute racism universally to any location-based adjective combined with an insulting noun?

Just for the record, I think if "dog" was used as an insult, that is the fan's mistake right there. Unimaginative and bland. I'm generally not a fan of heckles, but light-hearted joke heckles that don't personally insult are by far the best. At least the fan corrected his joke on the second attempt to follow the standard joke format, removing the possible insulting term. Although the journalist in the OP referred to the corrected joke as a slur.

"In a Feb. 25 ESPN.com story, the choice of words a fan said to Patty Mills was unclear. After further investigation, the fans said "Hey Jamaica called" twice to Mills."

No use of "dog" after all. It was a repeated joke.

Still racist or not?

So he didn't say dawg then?? There goes that hypothesis I guess.

And yet the guy is still banned indefinitely so clearly the Cavs - armed with all the information - knew it was racist.

Patty and all his teammates who've been asked about the incident knew it was racist and those questioned have applauded the decision to ban the fan.

So, yeah, sticking with the fact it was a racist taunt.

I don't need to explain my thought process. What I believe, like what you believe, it completely and utterly irrelevant.

The FACTS are that a fan used a racially charged comment to taunt Patty Mills - a taunt Patty and his teammates knew to be racist, as did the Cavs, who punished him for making the comment by banning him indefinitely. Not sure how our facts can possibly differ on that??

I tend to agree if he was called a Jamaican dog it definitely has racial overtones, and that's enough to take action. If there was no insult like that, just a joke about his hair and Cool Runnings, to me there is no basis for it being labelled racist.

Those spending time and energy arguing that the taunt was not racist and it needs to be proven racist: 1. have very unlikely encountered any racism and do not and will not ever GET it. 2. do not understand the inference of racism. the taunt was inferred racism and used to mock Mills.

The man on the sidelines took a look at Patty and chose to drunkenly yell out abuse at him whilst he took his shots.

Again, stop being disingenuous.

My position is it was a racist comment. I don't need to explain anything any further than that. I've made that pretty clear throughout the entire thread.

You claiming a fan would call someone Jamaican if they were white with dreadlocks is disingenuous.

"Maybe this will be the thread where white people can finally agree on what other races should find racist/offensive."

Given the topic of the thread, and the supposed stance taken by the poster, this deserves a response.

Ironically, it is the most racist statement quoted in this thread, loaded with presumptions directly related to race. There is no ambiguity about the racial references used. Please clarify again, Angus, if I am interpreting your statement incorrectly, but it seems like you:
- suggest "white people", as a generalised term, seek to prescribe what other races find racist/offensive
- imply that the disagreement within this thread is due to white people
- imply that people in this thread questioning the alleged racism must be white, making a seemingly impossible assumption of stance taken in an online forum being linked to race.

This is the problem when people try too hard to identify racism. They try too hard to see the world as delineated by race, ignoring other factors, and thereby become accidental racist themselves. I've seen it in other comments sections: "you must be white", "you must have never been subjected to racial discrimination" ... "because you are white". One great thing about making these arguments online is that arguments should be just about the arguments, not the characteristics or the situation of the person making the argument. It should be free from prejudiced preconceptions.

"Those spending time and energy arguing that the taunt was not racist and it needs to be proven racist: 1. have very unlikely encountered any racism and do not and will not ever GET it. 2. do not understand the inference of racism. the taunt was inferred racism and used to mock Mills."

I respond to these posts because there is an overzealous tendency to call out racism without consideration of other factors, other interpretations, and without much actual thought. Accusations of racism has become sensationalised and often misdirected. It is also common to see a mob mentality when these accusations are presented. This shouldn't happen because it is a very serious accusation. The issue that is the focus of this thread, in my opinion, is an example of a type 2 error. As it turns out, not only did the journalist not make the effort to analyse the meaning of the heckle, the journalist was so eager to attribute racism they they didn't even study the tape well enough to identify what was actually said by the fan.

Now as the story has changed, no "Jamaican dog", we see people adapting their stance, not changing their stance. The interpretation of the victim has become the story. Being offended is the reason. Penalties applied to the fan is the proof of racism.

Hahahaha well I'm offended.

I wonder if a comparison that isn't negative isn't quite in the "sickening remarks" territory as indicated by news.com.au's URL in OP's post? But I can appreciate that I haven't experienced life from a position of minority, so I wouldn't be particularly sensitive to remarks. Given Mills' response, he feels like it was offensive rather than just hairstyle heckling.

Well said rjd, nailed it. Those who purport to be for tolerance are often the most intolerant.

@ rdj; long post, but I think Isaac basically nailed it. Maybe I should have said "Australians of European descent" instead of "white people", but I'm both of those things and I'd say it describes the most vocal majority of folks that feel the need to get into these debates. Like I said above also, I don't think the comment was particularly racist (stupid, yes), but it's arrogant to think that I know how a minority would or should react to a comment like that.

"Australians of European descent"

So some people who survived or are descendants of genocide like acts in:

- The holocaust
- Poland
- Armenia
- Balkans
- Ireland

Seeing the world through a black/white prism leaves you blind to so much of what actually happens in this world.

I wonder if it is a case of some people viewing the world through America culture, because it's so pervasive, so they get stuck into thinking that is the world.

Thanks Paul, and apologies to all Polish/Armenian/Balkan/Irish/Jewish people I offended on hoops.com.au.