Printable View
Given the times that are in it, I figured we probably needed a thread on this to go along with the homophobia one.
Chuckles Green is at it again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...een-criticised
The astonishing stupidity of some of these people never fails to baffle me. He honestly thinks what he said was completely normal and that he's been persecuted by the PC Police. Moron. At least Di Canio realised that it would be better to pretend he wasn't a fascist.
Malaga owner, Abdullah Al-Thani, has blamed his club's defeat to Dortmund last night on some vaguely-defined racism: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22087218
Odd claim. Is he suggesting anti-Spanish racism (or anti-Qatari racism, even) pervades UEFA?Quote:
Malaga owner Sheikh Abdullah Al-Thani blamed racism for his side's dramatic Champions League defeat at Dortmund and called for Uefa to investigate.
Dortmund scored twice in injury time to complete a stunning 3-2 win and move into the last four.
But Felipe Santana's winner appeared offside and Qatari owner Al-Thani believes his side should have won.
He said on Twitter: "I'm sorry to go out this way, injustice and racism."Al-Thani, of the Qatari Royal Family, was named owner of Malaga in June 2010 after the 53-year-old bought the Spanish club.
A series of off-the-field financial problems mean Malaga are banned from European competition for one campaign when they next qualify.
Al-Thani added: "This is not football, but racism and clear of all.
"I hope to open a thorough investigation [by] Uefa regarding the Spanish club [going] out in this way."
Given the broken English I wouldn't be entirely sure of what he's saying, but given the circumstances it sounds like an irrational rant after an officiating ****-up. Pram, toys, etc.
I have no faith in FIFA to actually tackle racism, not when people like Sepp "Shake hands and forget about it" Blatter is at the helm.
Kick it out statement reacting to a Sun exclusive. The irony of KIO reacting blindly, inspired totally by a Sun exclusive, must have escaped them.
Kick It Out, football's equality and inclusion campaign, recognises and shares the concerns of the parties who felt mindful to bring the comments into the public domain. "The matter has been raised by the Chair, Lord Herman Ouseley, directly with The Football Association (FA), who acknowledges the apology made by Roy Hodgson, and now seeks an investigation to ascertain the full facts and ensure a similar situation does not arise again."
Which party are they talking about?
KIO want an investigation to ascertain the full facts? Ascertaining the full facts is certainly a good place to start and a good place for KIO to start before before stating that "KIO recognises and shares the concerns of the parties who felt mindful to bring the comments into the public domain" KIO blindly assume that Hodgson must have done something wrong because there was an apology floating around, assume something wrong was done and assume to claim that "it", whatever the "it" is, should not happen again. Well "it" was a Sun exclusive, so it must have been true.
Football against Racism in Europe also get involved with applying blame to Hodgson insulting him as if he is some caveman.
Then today the attention seeker himself, the self appointed guardian of civil right values, the Society of Black Lawyers chairman Peter Herbert can't resist to jump up and down waving a complaint, "does not consider the matter closed and will be putting in a formal complaint."
Are groups like this needed? of course they are, no question about that, but I expect standards of rationality, not throwing fuel onto values of ignorance.
Their reactions to this are an insult to standards of intelligence in society, not only do they not understand the English language, they distort meaning by removing context, they ignore what gives meaning to language, namely context. They assume the lowest standards of ignorance in interpretation of language and for what purpose? the betterment of standards of social order?
Probably an over-reaction, but then again Hodgson has proved a dick on this in the past when he worked in apartheid S.Africa and claimed he had no problem with it, at the time.
Did Hodgson say he had no problem at the time with Apartheid or did he say he didn't think too much about politics at the time and went for football reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
What you claim he said, makes it appear he had no problem with the system of apartheid in SA.
You assume that something is up with Hodgson because he went to play football in apartheid SA, 40 years ago?
That leaves some doubt in your mind with the interpretation of his 1/2 time talk ? leaves some doubt with the quality of his character?
I assume that anyone who ignored apartheid was a dick. Don't care if it was a thousand years ago...
Though having met him twice, would accept/assume he's not generally racist.
He was undoubtedly ignorant though, but then he could and should should have found out why it was wrong. Especially when he referred to it as "an evil regime".
It's not that I don't believe that Hodgson could be a racist, he could well be, I just don't believe he's stupid enough to call a black player a monkey to his face in front of the entire squad as a display of racism. I'd say I don't believe anyone's that stupid, but unfortunately, many are.
I was more surprised with how moronic his teamtalk tactics sounded. "Pass the ball to X" suddenly turns into this meandering joke about space monkeys. What will he say before the inevitable penalty shoot out in Brazil? Maybe some sort of "X walks into a bar" thing, where the point is to avoid hitting one.
Less racist and more ignorance of the exact situation and potential offensive nature of it. Ultimately, a storm in a teacup provoked by a single player that should have been kept private.
It's not a question of what went down at half time.
There are always people who are thick enough to ignore the English language, ignore context and impose any cynical interpretation of what went down.
That type of thing is a form of fascism.
For me it's a question of the watchdog groups acting with rationality, imposing perspective on any controversy and with regard to defined rules as to what constitutes racism.
All 3 failed totally in that regard, although Kick it Out belatedly did come to their senses and dismissed the incident entirely.
You wrote " he worked in apartheid S.Africa and claimed he had no problem with it, at the time"Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
That's more than an assumption, that a deliberate,sloppy and inaccurate attempt to implicate Hodgson, as clearly saying had no problem with apartheid.
When in fact, he said he didn't think too much about politics at the time and went for football reasons.
However, it's your prerogative to interpret that with your holier than thou interpretation, but at least correctly quote or paraphrase what the man said in the first place, so we don't have to go and find out what he actually said is something very different and open for many other interpretations.
If you say so. Wayful misreading and misinterpretation there. Not for the first time.
If anyone's being 'holier than thou', it's not me.
This racism thing is getting completely ridiculously over the last few years. Every word that is been said is over analysed and if you say one single word, certain groups pick on it and claim it a racist comment. Look at the meaning of the word racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Out of Hodgson's joke, which one of those meanings does it violate?
Why is the word "Monkey" deemed to be racist? What if he said, Space Dog, or Space Badger, would the groups come out and say it was racist, cause that joke could apply to any animal, but for some reason, we cannot use Monkey to describe anything. For example, if a commentator was to say about a black player, "That goalkeeper is as agile as a Monkey", that is probably a racist comment nowadays, even though there is absolutely no reference to race in that statement.
Certain words are definitely racist, insulting, derogatory, never to be spoken etc,
For the rest of the words in the oxford dictionary, context gives them meaning.
If you remove context from the english language, then any interpretation can be imagined. If you let context be defined by morons, black clouds of despair will cover society :)
In one discussion I had with people from all over the world (but maybe 60% from USA) there was a thread I started about methods on giving up cigarettes, only I used certain terms in the post 'giving up the fags', 'gasping for a fag', 'pack of fags' etc. Some pc fascists just would not give up and hounded me over the use of the word 'fags'. That's a homophobic word, yes it is but it's also in the Oxford dictionary and in daily common use by millions of people for hundreds of years - meaning a cigarette. Somebody from a Canadian city, pointed out for the last 10 years their gay pride march had merrily passed right by a small shop called 'Fags & Mags', with not a murmur of discontent. Even when context beyond doubt has been established, in a thread about giving up cigarettes, they would not back down about the use of the word 'fag' being offensive. Their not backing down, or refusing to be educated - my interpretation :) , had nothing to do with respect for gays, it had to do with their dogma, their insistence to ignore context and be the equivalent of the John Birch Society.
Even in instances of parody, satire, re-appropriation or sarcastic mockery?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Reappropriation, a trendy word indeed, where the dirty word has been cleansed and made appropriate to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
If such a word has been fully reappropriated, then it isn't an issue any longer, is it?
Anti-racist parody and satire are another context, it doesn't dawn on me to consider that as part of the racist agenda in sport. Just take some things as understood, Danny :)
But the question remains, at what point did you mention Nazis?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
You have nazis on the brain, Bonnie.
Any other question, perchance?
I do, do I?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Surely Godwin's Law was put into action at some point?
UEFA prove themselves useless orifices IMO.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...type=1&theater
In that discussion about different methods to give up the fags? I think most of them just crawled away without conceding the issue and a mod threw out a malingering die hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
You assume that people, who take exception to and counter the inappropriate and ignorant intervention of some pc fascists with intelligent, rational and witty retorts in a discussion, are just the other side of the same nazi coin?
Interesting case here: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland...gJHXj9.twitter
The cynic in me cannot help but note the circumstances. The manager even admitted he was seeking a replay (according to the piece, not a direct quote).
If the FA don't take firmer action than this then I'm simply staggered.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...ism-chief.html
David Elleray, respected ex-referee and FA employee, asks a black colleague, with intent to offend, if he has been down a coal mine.
Prehistoric stuff.
Yaya Toure's agent (in what sounds to me like a cynical attempt to create some headlines and in spite of his alleged disinterest in discussing politics and racism in the world of football) claims that Yaya's failure to win any top individual awards in the non-African game is primarily down to the fact he is black: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/engli...s-more-praise/
Even if personal prejudice based on race does influence the votes of some voters - and I'm not denying this might be an unpalatable reality in some cases - what can FIFA (or an association) really do about it anyway other than depriving certain parties of their voting rights based upon suspicion or embarking on a programme of thought-control?...Quote:
Originally Posted by RTÉ.ie
Haven't black players won these awards before? PFA Player of the Year 1993, Paul McGrath, springs to mind.
Yaya Toure is not one of the very best players in the world, hence no FIFA award. Suarez was better than him in England. Lots of guys from all nationalities, religions and races have won or been short listed for the major international and domestic awards.
Racism is terrible. Alleging racism on spurious grounds is probably as bad. Blatter should have been hauled over the coals for alleging that anti-corruption sentiment was racially motivated. If the head of such a major body trivialises racism then he's as good as condoning racism.
Being African didn't seem to harm George Weah's chances of winning World Player of the Year. Touré is quite openly in love with himself, to the point where he genuinely seems to think he's on the same level as the greatest players in the world.
http://rokerreport.sbnation.com/2014...ons-roker-park
Interesting response to Sol Campbell's racism chant claims from a Sunderland fan.
That's a superb article. Well done NFB for highlighting it.
Danny Rose isn't holding back in his pre-World Cup interviews. Here he discusses his racism fears with the Evening Standard and how he won't allow his family to travel to Russia - https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...-a3856701.html
And FIFA are saying refs will have the power to "stop, suspend or even abandon" matches in the event of racist behavior from players or spectators.
I'm not sure exactly how this would work in practise?
Abandonment of a match or match(s) would wreak havoc with the World Cup Schedule, especially in the group stages as fans will have booked flights/hotels etc in strict accordance with the group schedules. Abandoned matches would potentially throw out the whole schedule especially as the last groups stage matches have to be played in sync.
It'd also in a way encourage the problem - it wouldn't be a new thing to try get a game abandoned when you're losing.
OK, you say the game is awarded by default if the fans of the losing team got the game abandoned, and so they gain nothing - but similarly, what have they to lose? A slight chance of a replay is better than no chance of a draw.