Mark Clattenburg and "Racial" Language
I'm not sure if this is one for 'World Football' or 'Current Affairs' as it crosses both spheres, but I'll just post it here. A mod can move it to 'Current Affairs' if he wishes.
Anyway, Mark Clattenburg; he's been accused of using "racial" language in relation to two Chelsea players during their game against Manchester United on Sunday. However, something I've noticed is that he hasn't been acused of using overtly or explicitly racist language. What exactly is "racial" language then and can it be seen as distinct from racist language? Is there a subtle distinction and is this important or should this matter? Is one more inappropriate than the other or are they both as bad as each other?
Referring to a player as, say, "the black/African/Nigerian lad" in order to distinguish him from a group of surrounding white players would presumably be construed as racial in nature, but is it overtly racist and to be viewed in the same light as derogatory slurs like "n*gger"? I'm not really sure. Context is important. It may not be the most sensible thing to say in a highly-charged and sensitive environment, but I'm not so sure I would classify it as racist, nor would I put it on a pedestal anywhere near the latter racist term. I'm not even sure the former phrase would be unequivocally inappropriate. Then again, that's not necessarily what Clattenburg is accused of having said. It'll be interesting to hear what Clattenburg is actually accused of having said. A part of me suspects that Chelsea may be making a bigger deal out of this than is warranted in order to tarnish the reputation of a referee they feel cost them an important game; otherwise why not accuse him of having used racist language?
