Cyrus Christie D Swansea City b.1992

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

A statement can be unintentionally racist, I could use a term that I didn't know was racially charged (e.g. Suarez using "negrito"), but once it has been established as racist, then it's racist. That doesn't make me a racist for saying it, but using it again would.
These people clearly wanted Christie to leave because they don't regard him as Irish. The reference to Jamaica is a clear link to the colour of his skin. These people singled Christie out for this type of abuse because of his race. They are racists. This is not up for debate.

---

They singled him out because he failed to clear the ball off the line for their first goal I would say, anyone in a similar position
would have receive some abuse too. Maybe not racist but similar sort of stuff, basically whatever they could think of to throw
at him.

It is not a case of first order racism in my opinion, just a few lashing out because we had conceded. Had that incident
not happened I doubt there would have been such abuse towards him.

They are not so much people who go round in white hats and capes rather upset football fans I expect who said things
they in the heat of the moment they may now regret.

They are more idiots than racists, same thing in a way though.

That is how I see it anyway, others are entitled to their own opinions of course.

Let's face it the same people would have been singing his praises had he scored, that is the way things go in football, hero one week, villain the next. Mainly be getting a bit too over emotional. Getting some abuse in football is pretty much part of the game really, OK in most cases it will not be racial but it will be whatever else they can think of to throw at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Ok we’re in risky territory but I agree the Jews don’t own crucifixion,because crucifixion,despite the obvious exception,wasn’t historically specific to Jews.but if you said to a Jewish guy you’d send him to the gas chamber,it’s clearly rascist. The guy who sent the tweet used the word lynch on purpose,because the intent was to be racist. The point you’re making about him telling him to go play for Jamaica I can’t agree with.It’s the modus operandi of rascists to tell the subject of their abuse to return to wherever they’re from.doesnt matter if he told him to go play football or tiddlywinks,his intention was to tell Christie that he is not one of us,he belongs elsewhere and he should go there.that’s rascist in my view.

---

On the Jamaica bit, I know where you're coming from, but I think it's still harmless. Is it really any different to shouting "**** off Christie you useless ****?" This kind of stuff - rightly or wrongly - is almost a staple of terrace talk when a player has a poor game, or scores an own goal, or whatever.

The lynch thing is definitely more of an issue - but surely the logical conclusion of your argument there is that I, as a white person, would be less entitled to be offended/insulted/threatened by someone saying they'll lynch me? But that's the very definition of racism. (And, you racist, tets says you don't get to choose what I find racist, so I can now call you racist all I want :) )

There's a nasty element to the internet and social media, helped by anonymity. (It could be argued the guy didn't mean it, but given the issues comments like these have given rise to for many people across the world, I don't think that should be allowed as a blanket defence. You make a threat like that directly to someone, you answer for it)

Threats like this, in my opinion, should be treated the same regardless of the race of the person being threatened. That's why I'd argue it's not racist. It's worse than that.

The only solution is close twitter down completely!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

The only solution is close twitter down completely!

---

Or get them to hire Tets as a moderator. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Is that correct re jurisdiction though Walsall?,is the offence committed in the territory that it’s sent or received?or possibly both?could he be technically extradited? In any event,the Uk authorities seem more draconian than ours for this type of stuff so outcome-wise for him,it could be a more severe sanction in the Uk.

---

Has a complaint been made in the UK though?

Something i hadn't considered above is that Twitter and their servers are based in Ireland. This could all end up as an interesting test case of jurisdiction on the internet if it is persued.

are you sure? I know Twitter's EU headquarters is in Dublin, but I'm not aware of any datacentre they own here.

I'm not sure that it matters that it was electronic per se. Like if a guy fires a stone from Dundalk that hits a fella in Newry,wouldn't he be guilty of reckless endangerment here and GBH there and therefore capable of prosecution in both jurisdictions?. You're right though, there may not actually be a complaint lodged in England (yet).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fizzer

I'm not sure that it matters that it was electronic per se. Like if a guy fires a stone from Dundalk that hits a fella in Newry,wouldn't he be guilty of reckless endangerment here and GBH there and therefore capable of prosecution in both jurisdictions?. You're right though, there may not actually be a complaint lodged in England (yet).

---

That would be an act of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

No serious, maybe not war, provided the person could be extradited. There are other solutions, prisoner exchange etc...

But really I am sure there are better things to waste public money one than policing tweets surely?

Free speech is a right of course, a human right on which all human rights depend.

If free speech offends you move somewhere where they do not have it, you will find plenty moving the other way!

---

Eh? If the rascist abuse of a fellow Irish citizen offends me then I should move away? Have you totally lost your reason Tricky? Your basic position is that you support this guys right to abuse Christie over Christie's right to play football for his country without being abused because of his ethnic background. To say that people cannot be incited to hatred is beyond stupid, history has clearly shown the contrary........there was this fella once .......in Germany.....
The notion of one's behaviour influencing others is a long-standing and well established principle in the criminal justice system e.g. for section 6 Public Order, colloquially known as breach of the peace, the behaviour that you're engaged in has to 'provoke' or be likely to provoke a breach of the peace i.e. in another person, for the offence to be committed.
What if we weren't talking about an adult on a football pitch what if it's a five year old kid, you're all for people racially abusing them in the name of 'free speech'? You clearly don't even understand the concept.

Let me bring some levity to the conversation lads. We need each other more now than ever for this next 18 months. Martin de Porres is the patron saint of race relations. We must love all men and woman equally. Please check this article out as a fantastic statue of Mr. St. Porres was unveiled in Australia. I believe it will inspire us all to stick together in this difficult time.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/22/cathol...s-a-good-idea/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KrisLetang

Let me bring some levity to the conversation lads. We need each other more now than ever for this next 18 months. Martin de Porres is the patron saint of race relations. We must love all men and woman equally. Please check this article out as a fantastic statue of Mr. St. Porres was unveiled in Australia. I believe it will inspire us all to stick together in this difficult time.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/22/cathol...s-a-good-idea/

---

Typical Aussie's :p

So... ehh... about Cyrus...

Screw Cyrus... This is epic. :D

Nice show of support from the Boro fans on Wednesday

Anyhow former club Derby 3-0 up at Middlesbrough who are down to 10 men. Ayala sent off

thread cleaned, generic racism discussion moved to current affairs section, discussion relevant to the incident involving Christie left here, some posts deleted.

I didn't get a chance to post some detailed thoughts on the racism matter last week, but there's been some mad stuff in this thread over the last few pages. Hard to believe what I'm reading, and I'm not just referring to tricky's contributions (some now moved/deleted) on the matter either, which have been perplexing, troubling and ludicrous in equal measure.

Anyway, a few points on the whole episode and in response to some of what has been posted over previous pages that I'm just getting round to putting together and posting:

To the best of my knowledge, Christie is of mixed Afro-Caribbean (Jamaican), Irish and English/British heritage (and, no doubt, other more distant heritages further down the line of ancestry). He is all of these at once and his identity is comprised of all of them. As far as I can tell, his father (a brother of famous British boxer Errol Christie) is black and his mother, whose mother was from Dublin, is white. I've read on social media that Christie had a Jamaican grandfather (presumably paternal), through whom I assume he qualified to play for Jamaica, if the assertion about his grandfather is true.

Whilst the term "race" has no scientific grounding or biological significance, the concept is a social construct and most people will identify Christie as a black man because of how we're socialised. Generally-speaking, ideas of race were and still are used to justify the domination and exploitation of populations who, historically, either stood in the way of European colonisation (Aboriginal people in Australia and native peoples of the Americas, for example), who were exploited for the advancement of European markets (enslaved African people, for example) or who challenged the dogma of European Christianity (Jews and Muslims, for example). Essentially, it was developed by white Europeans with the principal aim of maintaining their supremacy.

The issue for Christie appeared to be with more than just two or three tweets. Christie's statement referred to "a number of racist comments ... during the World Cup qualifying campaign over the last couple of months". It's entirely understandable that this would upset him and that this would/should be confronted and given attention.

Just for clarity, these were two tweets from the night of the Denmark game in Dublin:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPLhOBeW4AEf5Zb.jpg

Those tweets (making reference to Jamaica) and the one making reference to lynching him were so obviously racist that I'm genuinely surprised that their status has apparently been "up for debate" over the past few pages. I keep thinking that those suggesting there's a debate to be had must be playing devil's advocate or on a wind-up.

I've seen this "...but they're still not racist by themselves" point being made both on here and on YBIG, although thankfully such downplaying/denialism is in the minority. In response, I'd say that the tweets don't exist by themselves. They don't exist in an isolated vacuum where words have no connection to one another or where words have no relevance to lived experience or to what those words might be referring. They exist in a particular socio-political context, in the real world, which is what naturally gives them meaning. Read between the lines to determine the subtext instead of attempting to contort and obfuscate reality or decontextualising the tweets through stripping the words therein of their purpose and meaning by being so tediously and obtusely literal.

Even if you wanted to read the tweets simply "by themselves" (as if context doesn't exist), one of them very explicitly attempts to deny Christie his Irishness, for heaven's sake! It literally tries to claim that he "ain't Irish" because "he is Jamaican" despite the fact both his Jamaican heritage and his Irish heritage derive from grandparentage. Logically, if you're going to identify him as Jamaican on the basis of a grandparent (who we aren't even one hundred per cent certain exists/existed), you have to identify him as Irish too, on the basis of another grandparent (who we are one hundred per cent certain exists).

On the argument that Christie might have been told to "go play for Jamaica" on the basis that the abuser thought he wasn't good enough to play for Ireland rather than because he wasn't of the "right" complexion or ethnic heritage, I would highlight that Christie was also once eligible to play for England as he was born in Coventry. His English heritage didn't come into the tweet, however, whilst his Irish heritage was dismissed or implicitly denied. Instead, the abuser focused on his Jamaican heritage. Why might that have been when they could just as easily have focused on his more obvious connection to England, considering he was born in Coventry? Couldn't they have just mentioned the better-known option of England rather than Jamaica if his Jamaican heritage wasn't the issue?

One might argue in response to this point that telling Christie to go play for Jamaica (who are ranked well below Ireland) would have been more consistent with his perceived level of ability than telling him to go play for England (who are obviously of a higher standard than both ourselves and Jamaica, meaning competition for an England position would likely be greater), but if Christie's perceived lack of ability was really what offended the abusers so much, rather than his Afro-Caribbean heritage or the colour of his skin, then the tweeter could simply have advised the Irish management to drop Christie altogether and play someone else instead of him, or they could even have advised Christie to give up playing international football, but the tweeter didn't choose either of those options either. They still chose to bring his Jamaican heritage into it, clearly as an attempt to make the point that Christie "shouldn't be in the Irish team" because of that heritage. The tweet had that classic ugly racist undertone of "go back to where you came from" to it.

Arguably, the fact the tweets came from non-Irish (English) accounts rather than Irish accounts also lends credence to the contention that the motive was to racially abuse Christie rather than to make points in favour of the perceived interests or in defence of the perceived quality of the Irish football team. An Irish person would be more likely to have the interests of the team at heart, but is a white non-Irish person singling out and abusing a black player playing for Ireland with explicit reference to that black player's Jamaican heritage likely to be primarily concerned for how our football team is doing or is their primary concern more likely to be the racist belittlement of the player they've decided to target? I would suggest the latter.

The words or threat in the tweet to Christie regarding lynching were directed towards a black man; that obviously has profoundly racist connotations considering it quite blatantly harks back to a particularly dangerous and oppressive time for black people in American history. We all know full well how lynching was used in the US on a widespread, quasi-systematic basis as a method of extrajudicial execution of mainly African-Americans and of enforcing white supremacy, particularly in the late 1800s to the mid-1900s. (I use the term "quasi-systematically" as the practice of lynching in the US supposedly wasn't officially condoned, despite it obviously being tolerated.)

The association of black people with lynching is embedded in the popular consciousness of the Western public; the historical oppression of black people is what most Western people will be thinking of when they use the word "lynching" (without specific mention to some other context in which the practice has been used) and it is what most people will understand when they hear the word "lynching" (unless some other context in which the practice has been used is specifically mentioned).

This is because it was black people who were subjected to the practice to such a disproportionate degree in relatively modern Western history. To the best of my knowledge, no other identity group in modern Western history was so specifically targeted in this fashion and subjected to widespread lynching in the same manner that African-Americans were in the US around the end of the 1800s and during the first half of the 1900s.

Has any other identity group worldwide suffered from the practice on such a concerted or targeted basis? I'm not aware that they have, but I'm open to correction. Global examples appear to comprise of mostly isolated cases. India, where the practice has been used as part of inter-communal and inter-caste violence (although to nowhere near the same quasi-systematic level as that suffered by African-Americans), appears to be an exception, along with some regions in South America and parts of South Africa where lynching has been used by communities against suspected criminals, drug dealers and governmental collaborators (during conflict) from their own communities. There was no pervasive or over-riding racial dimension to the deployment of the practice in these contexts, however.

Weaponising the term as a threat against a black person is an obvious attempt to make a connection to the dark period of US history of which we're all well very aware. What is the message such a threat is attempting to convey? It's trying to promote the notion of white supremacy and a feeling of black powerlessness.

It's not that black people "own lynching", nor is anyone asserting such a thing. To suggest this is an absurd misrepresentation of the discussion, as if black people have decided to "selfishly" ring-fence or horde the term for themselves to garner sympathy and feed some "unwarranted" sense of grievance or victimhood, when the reality is that the term "lynching" has become so associated with black people in Western society because lynching has been such a prominent feature or recurring theme/trope of the abuse and threats to which they've been subjected at the hands of white people in modern Western history.

It's like saying that black people have "claimed slavery"; similarly to lynching, slavery is so associated with black people because no other identity group in Western society was subjected to chattel slavery on such a systematic basis in the way they were. It's not because black people are trying to deny the experiences of other victims of slavery or the practice of lynching. What a ridiculous insinuation.

In fact, if anyone is trying to deny others their experience of slavery, it's disingenuous white racists who attempt to conflate chattel slavery (what African slaves experienced) with indentured servitude (what Irish "slaves", for example, experienced) in order to undermine legitimate black grievance in modern times.

The reality is that the ordinary person in our society will not automatically think of cases of lynching that might have occurred in Central America, India or the Middle East when they hear the word "lynching", and particularly not when it's used to abuse or threaten a black man, for heaven's sake. (Were you even previously aware of those other contexts in which lynching was used, P_Stu, or did you encounter them after deciding to look deeper into the history of the practice when the Christie abuse issue made the headlines?) Most people will think of the American history of lynching, because that is the most well-known history of the practice in Western culture.

That's not to say those other mentioned histories ought to be ignored or dismissed, but we're talking about perceptions and the intent of abusers. When someone threatens to "lynch" a black man, they're obviously not making the reference to acts of lynching in India, wherever or anywhere else other than the US. To suggest they might be making the threat in reference to any other context just seems like an attempt to extenuate the abuse or deflect from reality and I really find it hard to fathom why evidently intelligent posters here would want to do that. To suggest that a threat to lynch a black man might not be racist because lynching was also a feature of other cultures in history besides the US is just so utterly disingenuous that I'd have to question one's motives in even "just wondering".

Of course a white individual threatening to lynch a white individual wouldn't be racist, but would a white individual threaten to lynch another white individual anyway? I don't think it would be common - the party doing the threatening would probably use the word "hang" instead - because lynching has specific connotations (outlined above) in the general mind of the Western public. The actual global history of lynching (and the fact it was used in other societies besides the US) is ultimately irrelevant here because racism isn't grounded in fact; it's grounded in perceptions and stereotypes.

There's a bit more to this whole issue than "just words" or simple name-calling. The abuse was an attempt to "other" Christie and outcast him as "not Irish" or as an "outsider". It was a nasty attempt to question or cast aspersions over his identity, his heritage, his authenticity and his commitment. I'm not sure what qualifies some people to so blithely dismiss Christie's experience and hurt, people who will have had no experience whatsoever of being shunned by those they thought were their own people. I'm sure it'd hurt, especially if one was already at a particularly low point mentally, such as having just missed out on World Cup qualification partly because you scored a very unfortunate own-goal.

I'm aware that those behind the most recent abuse were English - and I was relieved to learn they weren't Irish - but Christie wasn't to know that at the time. For all he knew, they were Ireland supporters shunning him.

As tets has stated, the articulators of racist ideas don't get to define what is or isn't racism. In fact, if you look through the history of racist ideas, you'll found that every group or party articulating racist ideas invariably denies that their ideas are racist; instead, they use "justifications" based on purported humour, disingenuous decontextualisation, pseudo-science, scripture, half-assed sociology or whatever. Of course, people are entitled to defend themselves against a charge of racism, but they don't get to bend the definition of racism to exclude their prejudicial assumptions or malign beliefs.

Even if you don't wish to apply the "racist" label to the Jamaica tweets, for whatever reason, you can't deny that they were prejudicial based on an immutable trait - that being Christie's Jamaican heritage - so they are in a similar moral category anyway.

The abuse was problematic because it attempted to reinforce the racist stereotype or notion that black people, such as Christie, aren't or can't really be Irish, in spite of the fact Christie is an Irish national who plays for our national football team. Calling it out and labelling such abuse as "racist" is useful in that it identifies and highlights it as a problem (a problem that has deep roots in historical and structural oppression), exposes it for what it is and potentially works to erode both the abusive behaviour and the ignorant assumptions that drive it.

For educators, education requires first understanding the nature of the issue and an understanding of where knowledge and insight is lacking on the part of the offender or even society at large. It's important to understand why Christie was targeted. By ignoring the significant racist element of the threat and treating it just the same as if it were a white-on-white threat rather than a white-on-black threat, you essentially prevent an understanding of the thinking that informed the threat. Understanding the racist roots of the threat ought to better enable more appropriate action in response.

If it is determined that a threat was purely personal due to a specific interpersonal grievance or disagreement, then there's no wider social problem besides the threatening behaviour associated with what is an isolated threat. If the threat was launched at someone due to the colour of their skin, with some perceived "wrongdoing" on their part used as a pretext or convenient cover, then there's a wider problem for society there as well as the threatening behaviour that requires a different form of action or education in response.

I feel it is right that racist abuse be faced down when it raises its head - be it in the form of a few tweets or an EDL-style march - rather than being ignored or swept under the carpet. I have no problem with the level of attention that was devoted to this matter; for one thing, it hopefully reassured Christie that the overwhelming majority of Irish fans are all behind him and that we have no time for prejudice.

If one feels that this matter was given "too much coverage" relative to or at the expense of other important matters, that's a reason to publicise those other matters too and to encourage the devotion of a greater level of attention to those matters you feel are ignored, neglected or under-reported rather than seeking to curtail the level of attention afforded to this matter. So long as racism exists, it's worth talking about.

Players are entitled to have social media accounts just like any other person in society. They're real people too. That doesn't justify directing personal or racist abuse their way, which should not be conflated with valid constructive criticism, which they ought to reasonably expect if they play poorly.

Tricky said of the abusers, "They are not so much people who go round in white hats and capes rather upset football fans I expect who said things they in the heat of the moment they may now regret." This is the language of apologia and it's dangerous because it perpetuates a myth that only a "certain nasty/ignorant/uneducated type" - "fanatics" or "sociopaths", for example - can be guilty of racist thinking. The reality is that completely average and ordinary people can be racist or can harbour racist ideas and assumptions without having thought too much about why they think that way. It can be entirely banal.

Nobody in this (NSFW) 1920 photo from the US is wearing white hats and capes. They all look like fairly ordinary "well-to-do" people, but they're all evidently racist by virtue of their participation in the lynching ritual.

You don't understand what racism is if you think it needs to be as explicit as going round in white hats and capes. Structural racism exists. Casual racism, which need not necessarily be overt but can play out due to ignorant, careless or prejudicial assumptions that people may unwittingly harbour through lack of education or failure to think critically, is insidious. Then you've got "jokes" and "banter" that perpetuate the trivialisation of people based upon their racial identity. These types of racism have real and detrimental material effects for those who are exposed or subjected to them, just as the more overt, malicious form of racism can do very real harm too.

Threatening a white person with reference to "lynching" is just a different form of abuse or threat (compared to when the same is delivered white-on-black); it isn't informed by an entire system of fear and oppression, nor does it refer to such to buttress its intended gravity and give it an added sinister dimension. Black people have actually been harmed by white people quasi-systematically lynching them in extrajudicial fashion through history.

There's no history of the same for whites on whites to remotely the same degree and those white people who were lynched in the US during that period between the 1890s and 1960s weren't treated in such a way due to their whiteness - in fact, many of the whites who were lynched were lynched because they helped black people or because they were anti-lynching - so to equate the respective threats is to downplay the history of lynching to which black people have been subjected, which is arguably racist in itself. As I touched on above, it's a bit like the "...but the Irish were slaves too (and we've moved on, so why can't you just get over it too?)" guff that attempts to undermine or discredit the legitimate grievances of black people in Western society.

To say that looking at the two respective threats differently might be racist fails to understand what racism is. As GR noted above, racism is prejudicial or stereotyping sentiment relating to another's perceived race combined with the privilege of being in a position of power to abuse or oppress. Western society was built upon structural racism of which non-whites were subject. White people have never been subjected to the same sort of structural racism black people have in Western history.

On the Darron Gibson analogy; telling Gibson to "**** off and play for NI" could well be a partitionist attempt to degrade or deny Gibson's Irish national identity. Austin Currie once suggested this sort of thing might be "almost racist". Writing in the Irish Times in 1997, he stated that "those [ partitionist] elements in this State who query the Irishness of Northern nationalists, who speak of their difference in almost racist terms, should seriously consider counselling".