Makes perfect sense to me Saint. Can’t speak for people on here but I like to think despite all the jokes were all pretty tolerant and no one has any ill feeling towards anyone even during the arguments. It rarely ever gets personal and I certainly would hope someone reading your post, especially so elegantly put, wouldnt take offence to it.
You have pretty much said what i have felt about this, the phrase is of no difference in any significant way as to be classed as racist or not. I feel a certain section of society (and i am talking about all of society here) for some reason just need something to cause friction/feel offended about about all the time. I think it somehow makes them feel like a better person in some way but very often just causes division for very trivial things. Like you i am a bit cautious of posting stuff like this because you never know how people are going to take it or if your wording has conveyed the meaning correctly to others.
What you said makes sense. it’s just such a touchy subject and for some good reasons, but don’t think there’s ever going to be a right or wrong answer to any of this. But I think what scares people is saying the wrong thing when no offence is ever made. It makes you think twice, should I say this? Should I say that? Suddenly you’re thinking more about the persons race and offending them, which is ironically treating that person different to how you would if they were white? I understand what Clarke said may be offensive to some people but from what I gather, the context around it wasn’t actually racist? that’s where it becomes difficult for me to get my head around.
I think you make some good points but I don’t think it was a word or phrase which he mistakenly said which led to him resigning. It was the attitude which these words represented (coloured, Asian IT workers, “girls” not liking it physical etc). The irony is that he was supposed to lead football into a better era of diversity.
What a minefield. I can only give my own subjective opinion. I think it is nothing grammatical (which do not indicate any difference I agree) . It is more to do with the specific use of that phrase “coloured person” or “coloured people” a few decades ago in times of segregation. Many signs in South Africa and the US confederation states used to have signs such as “coloured people only” “white people only” or “coloured not allowed”. Persons of colour do not carry the same historic offensive connotation on an emotional level.
This is exactly what I meant in an earlier post. Thank you Diego for illustrating my point so graphically. You not only don’t agree that the words are offensive. You go on the attack and say the people offended “NEED something to cause friction/feel offended about all the time.” So they feel offended to feel a better person. And you finish your rant with a flourish by calling these words “very trivial things”. Can’t you even for a few seconds accept that although YOU don’t find the words offensive, OTHERS because of their background or history find them offensive and unacceptable? I said in an early post I find it difficult to accept how in a society why only certain views of life, society, justice, language have to be the only ones reasonable and others are not? Who are we to arbiter when someone should or should not be offended by a word? I can readily accept in good faith that many black people find the words Coloured players offensive and not at all trivial or a way to cause friction. Why can’t you without denigrating these people?
You've made some relevant points, and I'd like to keep to a civilised debate and not descend into an eristic argument or slanging match. Ever read 1984? I read it when I was about 14 or 15 - a long, long time ago What it did to my burgeoning moral consciousness was make me aware of how the restrictive and proscriptive limitations put on the use of language can be used to manipulate and shape thought processes. People struggle to express feelings or concepts if denied the words to do so. Now I'm sure that the people behind the advice offer it with the best intentions, but the danger is always there of it being used to control people in a less positive manner, and that makes me uneasy. Freedom of speech is an awkward and complex subject - one's own personal freedoms don't extend to the denial of someone else's so we always have to take into account the impact of our words and actions. Hate speech, and the incitement to violence are of course illegal, but to condemn someone for the inconsiderate use of an uncomfortable term could be seen to be an over-reaction - especially when what is or isn't acceptable fluctuates according to the mood of the time and doesn't follow a clear and obvious "natural" law. Anyway, I've gone much further down this rabbit-hole than I intended, and I'm off to bed. Like I said, I've no desire to offend anyone over this, but I don't think the question of right and wrong here is as simple as is sometimes made out.
ooh this is a good game can i play do you think there is difference between a ) Person with a Disability . b ) Disabled Person .
In the way you have responded to Diego who really looked like he was trying to be careful how he articulated his words you have illustrated how difficult this is by dissecting every word and placing the narrative on it that you thinks serves in this scenario Greg Clarke I believe was one of the FA board who was trying to get Paul Elliot on the FA board he has made a mistake and apologised and explained straight away and yet people still want more and have tarred him with a brush. do you believe that Greg Clarke is a racist ? Bearing in mind that is quite a serious accusation? or do you believe he is a normal human who made a mistake I have no idea how the decision to resign went down - maybe Mr. Clark was totally horrified that he had spoken in such a manner and felt that it was not appropriate for him to stay in position If that is the case does he not warrant some sort of chance at redemption or are we saying one wrong comment and you are done ? I have heard this question a number of times (not directly specifically at me and you more the point of the statement) but what happens when I am offended that you are offended ? Very difficult topic
I'm sure he was asked to resign. Part of the problem is still the predominantly if not all old white men being in charge and making decisions. Even if people aren't racist of knowingly coming across racist, it can come across and falls under them being unaware or even unconscious bias.
The term 'coloured' has a significant association with colonialism, slavery and apartheid. This is why it's deemed offensive. There are terms like "n*gga" and "c*on" which are associated with the above but are often said with intent. Saying "coloured" is not really now said with any intent but there are underlying issues with saying it.
Are we not being ageist here You have just placed all old white men into one pot right there but not many will call you on it. If we are being tolerant do we not have to understand they were brought up very very very differently to us if we are preaching tolerance yet not being tolerant ourselves surely we become hypocrites ?
Whilst I don't think Greg is a racist, this whole incident shows how this country need to be educated on such topics. There are terms and phrases which are said and aren't deemed to be racist because there is no intent but that does not mean it's acceptable. The key word is 'intent' because a lot of people think racism is when you say something with intent. This is incorrect - racism can be far more subtle than this, and this is where we all need educating. For example - you still see people across the globe painting their faces black (fancy dress / Halloween) to commemorate their favourite celebrities or whoever. Griezemann actually did this last year I believe. There was one little LFC fan who dressed up and painted his face to be like Mane. Neither example were done with intent to cause harm and actually wanted to celebrate the people they were trying to be like. However, BlackFace is rooted in racism where in the US after the Civil War, white performers played characters that demeaned and dehumanized African Americans.
I agree that we should be tolerant and accepting of everyone however the fundamental difference is that 'old white men' haven't been discriminated for centuries. These people have been powerful for pretty much all of history.
But surely if they are trying to celebrate that’s a good thing ? Surely that is a result of the influence many of us want Make a new meaning - understand what the individual is trying to do/represent We can’t keep looking to the past as it is a minefield surely it is better to look to the future for me the biggest issue facing humans always has and always will be the gap between the rich and those in poverty no matter what colour the individual Address that and I believe you will address most inequalities but that is purely a personal thought and with that I am bowing out To quote a very sensible poster I am further down the rabbit hole than I wished to be lol
I understand that totally but it is not ALL old white men Damn it anyway I’m out Interesting debate though if it can remain civil Can we do transgender in sport next please
The oppressor is celebrating the oppressed by using tools that were used during the oppression ... It's like me beating the sh*t out of someone with a baseball bat and then celebrating a year later by waving around my baseball bat.
Don't go bumps, you are making alot of sense. I especially like the looking to the future part, surely thats a better way of dealing than constantly turning toward the past
