I notice that most of the posters on this thread are not online atm, so I will leave my question hanging and hope to get an answer in due course. Ensil perhaps if you explain your understanding it may clarify the useage.
No. He is (allegedly) calling him a terrorist simply because of his religious views, equating all Muslims with terrorists. Ergo it would be a racist remark because Fab probably assumes he is Arab/North African.
You have to look at why Fabregas may have said it. To be honest, it's more likely that it's because he's Moslem, although it could have been because of his North African heritage and that a number of terrorists have come from there in recent years. I'd assume it's the former, plus the fact that he fits the prejudiced man's description of an Islamic terrorist, ie dark skin and a beard. The racism tag might not be appropriate in that Islam is not a race but the comment(if true) ticks all the other boxes, in terms of being a vile, ignorant and derogatory remark. As it happens Kanoute is a thoroughly likable bloke and a devout Moslem, he bought a local mosque in Seville when it was about to have to be sold off. Just checked on Wiki and he paid around £500k for it so that it could continue to be a place of worship for the locals.
Whether it was racist or mere religious bigotry and intolerance, it was utterly wrong and should be punished severely. You wouldn't get away with this in any other working environment. Why should footballers be exempt? Especially as they won't get sacked, as you or I would. It's appalling behaviour, and utterly indefensible.
As others have said, it's the implication of the statement, if it was actually made. Kanoute refused to wear Sevilla's sponsors logo a couple of seasons ago, as it was an online gambling firm. He felt that promoting it compromised his faith, so he had a sponsorless shirt for a while. I think he came to some sort of agreement about his payments from the deal being made to an Islamic charity in the end, if I remember correctly.
For the simple reason it is saying Islam = terrorism. In other words, the one notable thing about George W Bush's time in the White House is that he created a culture that made calling someone a terrorist an ethnic slur - whilst implying that there's no such thing as a white terorist (such as, say, the IRA or Eta...)
Let's be honest, there aren't many Buddhists in Baghdad, not many Hebrews in Beijing, and not many Scientologists in Bilbao. However, equating Spanish (and Russian) football with racism is idiotic - as idiotic as the news reports conveniently forgetting to mention the minor fact that the England fans were aiming several racist chants towards the Romany home fans in Sofia last month. English football hasn't eradicated racism, it just pretends it has. After all, where were the headlines when Demba Ba stated he'd been racially abused by West Ham, fans?
I have spent a lifetime hating racism and fighting it but calling someone a terrorist because they are muslim is not racist. Insulting, bad manners, uncalled for, it may be but racism is very different. A persons race is not a matter of choice, you are what you are and to be treated differently because of that fact is totally unacceptable. Racism is just a lack of civilisation in the perpertrator and apart from ignorance has no excuse. A terrorist on the other hand is a purely political label applied by one side to another. All groups fighting one another will have a derogatory name for the foe. It's an all incompassing insult to justify one position against another. The British will be viewed as terrorists by some just as the British view some as terrorists, it just depends which side you are on. So it's not an insult it is a political modus operandi. Religion is again different because it is (or at least should be) a choice. Of course many people are indoctrinated in a religion from an early age and therefore are unable to make a proper choice. So while taking into account the vunerability of some folk, religion should be questioned/attacked wherever reasonable to do so. After all if you are for example a Christian it cannot be an insult to call you one, same as Jew, Muslim, Bhuddist and so on. Religion and Politics are fair game but Race is not and people should be careful not to mix these terms up.
That may be true Spurf, but would he have called someone like his ex-teammate Samir Nasri a terrorist? I'm guessing that he wouldn't, despite them both being North African Muslims.
In this day and age, calling a Muslim a terrorist is the ultimate ethnic slur (which, as I mentioned earlier, is only because we've spent the last ten years being told only Muslims are terrorists) - maybe not a racial slur per se, but that's mainly because there isn't really a term to label them with that has anywhere near the power of the term John Terry used on Anton Ferdinand yesterday, or the myriad ones that Chelsea fans lob at us regularly enough.
Being a Muslim is not about ethnicity it's a religion not a race. If you go along with confusing the terms you just help to cloud the issue which allows racism to persist.
Let's ask Lucaaas... he seems to be Not 606's resident scholar on racism... http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/95785-So-NUFC-remain-quot-untested-quot-and-unbeaTOON!!/page3
When around 90% of the Arab world is Muslim, it's not confusing the terms in any way, shape or form - which is also why calling them terrorists is the ultimate ethnic slur. On the other hand, making anti-Semetic slurs on random white people doesn't work because 90% of white people aren't Jewish. But, as I said earlier (before we took a trip to Pedant's Corner) there isn't a list of slurs to make against Arabs in the way that the human race has spent the last couple of thousand years dreaming up to use on blacks, Jews, Hispanics, women or homosexuals. Seriously, other than "terrorist" - which got a response from Kanoute and (allegedly) Zidane - what else is there?
With the exception of towel head - which, if you think about it, is surely more offensive if used against a Sikh - have you ever heard any of those used? Apart from the majority of the list not even sounding particularly offensive, and the most offensive are rehashed ones used against blacks and the Welsh, illustrates my point - there isn't an Arab-specific slur that has any weight when uttered, hence the use of terorist. You'd think bigotry would've come up with one by now. They've had since, oh I don't know, the time when the Moors reached Spain in the 8th Century...
Sorry can't follow your logic. It must make sense to you but to me it is adding confusion to confusion. The only way forward in this discussion is semantics, therefore I think we will have to agree to differ on this one. I stick to the original point I made on this thread.
