George Negus and the ‘boy’ comment
- Share
Some people have got a bit excited about Negus referring to President-elect Obama as ‘boy’ on last week’s Dateline election show. According to the transcript, it’s not even clear that Negus is referring to Obama singular or his administration more broadly.
But, anyway, so what? It’s clear that Negus is using it in an Australia sense of ‘who’s a busy boy then’ and is not being racist.
Negus has an exemplary record on race issues and, in particular, aboriginal issues here in Australia and over the years has done more than most to promote awareness and the cause of reconciliation.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Anyone who knows George and/or, as you say knows his record, would also know instantly that it is ridiculous to even suggest that he might have been being racist. The transcript, with its weirdly placed apostrophe, indicates that he said “boys” and probably, given the lover of the vernacular he is, in the sense you proffer. I’d say “what is this country coming to?” except it would make me sound like a grump
.
Load of crap. Even if he did mean ‘boy’ he meant it in the Australian sense. So the only thing you could really take offense of here is that George called him ‘young’.
Which given his old age of 47, I’m sure you’ll agree, is absolutely outrageous.
Arggh that horrible apostrophe bothers me.
While finnicky, it seems a little odd that there is a discrepancy between the audio and the transcript (audio along the lines of “I think the boys gonna be busy” or alternatively “I think the boys are gonna be busy”).
No conspiracy there I’m sure, but why the necessity to deviate from what was actually said? George was speaking casually (As is his wont), so why not have the transcript reflect that?
And isn’t this the same issue raised recently by Bernard Keane regarding a speech by our Prime Minister? Is it really necessary to review and revise spoken material purely for posterity’s sake? We’re all bloody human!
The spoken word is always revised in Hansard. If you listen to the chamber and then read Hansard there is usually a little difference. Members/senators/others can submit ‘revisions’ to Hansard for them to fix and there are conventions as to how much can be ‘fixed’. There’s been a little controversy recently when Julie Bishop sought to get the Hansard to correct something she’d said to ‘put it in the right light’.
Sorry for no giving a clearer reference, ltep. I was thinking more along the lines of the following (from Crikey 07Nov):
“The Prime Minister on Wednesday afternoon welcomed the election of Barack Obama in the great Tasmanian town of Launceston.
“45 years ago Martin Luther King dreamed of an America where men and women will be judged not on the colour of their skin but on the content of their character,” the Prime Minister declared.
“Today what America has done is turn that dream into a reality.”
Ah, true. Fine words.
The transcript issued by the Prime Minister’s Office says “45 years ago.” As do local media reports … now.
Except, there’s something a little odd. Google Rudd’s remarks and you can see that “25″ appears to have originally been used by The Age and The Oz, but click through to the actual stories either 45 is used or the quote is omitted.
Clearly some other people heard “25″. The Poms and AFP, for starters.
Ah well, perhaps the Prime Minister misspoke, and that’s no sin. A bit naughty to change the transcript, however. But given Barack Obama wouldn’t have been overly impressed by an Australian Prime Minister who appeared not to know the basics about the man who was, until Wednesday, the most important African-American political figure in US history, a little hasty editing probably spared some blushes.”
Except … a Crikey reader who saw the initial reports immediately after the press conference was sure Rudd said “25 years ago.” Which would put King’s famous speech in 1983, round about the time when Ronald Reagan was agreeing that the late Dr King should be honoured with a national public holiday. Rumours that Reagan thought it was to celebrate the day Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to the Lincoln Memorial are wholly untrue.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.