I've seen so many people come out and publicly state that Suarez / Terry are not racists. I even looked it up rac·ism (rszm) n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race. Surely using racist language is a defacto standard for being a racist. For example, can someone add the word black to an insult without being racist himself?
Steve I was talking about his topic last night with the wife. EDIT due to the Stephen Lawrence.. reports..on t.v. I go back around 5 years and our Grandson was at the local Nursery school. They have/had BANNED the young one's from singing the nursery rhyme. Ba ba black sheep ... to my mind it bloody ridiculous. And, do you remember that t.v. comedy a few years back. "Love thy neighbour"?? It was hillarious and NO ONE complained then. The black guy called his English neighbour. A white "Honky" Funniest t.v. show I've seen in years. I think? it would be banned today given the recent comments in football and the media. My own oppinion is.. If you are white, you are white. If you are black, you are black. It's ONLY a skin colour nothing more and it's PROVEN that, we are ALL of us decendants from Africa FACT! And Just wondering but, if a black/yellow/brown/ sky blue pink person called me a White honky is that racist. Cos it ins't. WHAT is the difference for me there isn't one.
The problem with racism (IMO) is that it is generally highlighted when comments or actions are made against a non white person by a white person and whilst this is wholey unexceptable and should not be tolerated, there are many other forms of racism between people of the same race and between different races that dont always included a white person or in which the white person is the victim. This for me is what makes the defination and severity of a racist very hard to pigeon hole. I for one have no intention of defending either Suarez or Terry, but feel that they are very different cases. Surez's case is between 2 individuals with very little (infact I dont think there was any) outside witness/3rd party evedience to concluded/coloberate the actual events - hence one person's word against another. The irony in this case is that Suarez actually admitts that he used certain terms that he deemed to be exceptable from his culture (allthough the amount of times it was used is disputed) and he also alledgedley recieved comments from Evra about his origin, which were deemed acceptable or not racist. It has also been acknowledged that outcome of the investigation would not be a on a par with a court of law (although I am under the impression that it has been reffered to the CPS) and hence technically makes a mockery of the decession made. What I mean by this is that if the CPS decide that there is NOT enough eveidence to proceed with prosection, or were to fall short of a conviction, technically Suarez would have the right to contest the decession made by the FA or alternatively make a counter claim for convicting him of racism which was not substantiated under English Law - hence defaming his charachter! Terry's situation is different, it is alledged that there is catagoric TV evidence to support that certain comments were made, and due to the manner in which Terry alledgedley delivered the said comments it has appeared to raise the level of investigation staright to the police (for which the CPS are deciding whether to proceed further), and hence the FA has been bypassed and will not conduct an inquiry to avoid jeopardising the case - similar to the Levenson enquiry into the NOW where it will only discuss/investigate certain issues. The outcome is yet unknown, but if charged Terry could delay the court case and the potential outcome for years (through legal loop holes), and as the law states still continue his life as an innocent man untill the outcome is reached - Given Terry's age that could be the end of his career. Alternatively the CPS may decided under negotiations with Terry's legal team that there would not be enough evidence to convict and plea a lesser charge (foul/abusive language public order charge, or similar minor misdomenaour) and hence he would not be convicted of racism and any conduct issues that the FA decided to take (which could be non due football language in general) would mean that he would recieve a far lesser charge than Suarez, or potential no charge! For me, the 2 cases have been and will be dealt with totally different over a far wider time span. Suarez sits on a 8 match ban and has been branded a racist based on 2 private witness statements, whilst Terry plays on a innocent man for an undefined period of time after his alledged comments were broadcast around the world? I wonder if Terry wasn't a white England Captain, whether the FA would have dealt with the issue differently, becaise ultimatley he is likely to be captain at Euro 2012! So in answer to the Opp's question, it is very difficult to define what/who is a racist, but one thing for sure is this; the intent or venom in which words are delivered probably play more significance than the words themselves. My point, be a decent human being and refrain from speaking to a fellow human being in way in which you yourself would feel offended! If the line is crossed then I would hope that, the offending individual would be able to hold their hands up, apologies and take the appropriate punishment! ****** (I have no personal opinion on of either of these alledged incidents and do not condone racist or abusive behavious to any person regardless of age, gender or race) *********
Depends on what is the Politically Correct stance of the day really. Alan Hansen gets pilloried for calling somebody 'coloured' - should have been 'black', a couple of years ago, you couldn't call anybody black!! An Irishman recently won X amount of money from a tribunal because workmates referred to him as a Paddy Barsteward, similary calling a Scotsman a Jock Barsteward HAS been considered racist. So the bottom line is that colour does NOT come into it, which is nonsense, of course it does: An example of an Austrailian calling somebody a barsteward, as in G'day you old barsteward - is considered a term of affection, calling somebody a black barsteward is a derogatory statement, most usually the statement would be spat out with the emphasis being on black. So happens today that the devine and black Diane Abbot MP has had to apologise for saying that in black communities, white people like to divide and rule. That's ok then, now if that had of been the other way around, heads would have rolled. Funny old world innit
Why's that Potts?? Here is a straightforward explanation: A racist is a person who says "I'm not a racist BUT................................ Simples
Wasn't it originally stated that Suarez called Evra by his nickname? somethin like black speedy **** then it was some phrase used commonly in south america so much so even commentators use it regularly But "you dirty bastard, your black!" is that insulting enough yet not racist?
Haven't been on here in ages, just nipped back to see if there's any transfer rumors floating about, and came across this and thought, where do you draw the line? Is it alright to call Andy Carrol a stupid Geordie bastard? Or Stevie G a useless Scouse thug? Still taking the piss because of where they're from. We get away with telling Gareth Bale he looks like a chimp, but you'd get in a whole lot of **** for saying that to a black player. . . Also, I think there may be a few players who need to man up. Fair enough, if you feel properly victimized, report it, but you could just as easily pick out something to rip them about, for example if Suarez had insulted me, I'd rip into his massive hooter and buck teeth, don't even have to mention race or colour.
Pistol Your not rasist then. Just kick the **** out of the first person to insult you. Maybe that's what Evra should have done. Sorted Three game ban for both, everyones happy and we would not be talking about racism. Hands up those who chanted Bale you look like a chimp v Spurs.? I didn't I was too busy singing abuse and shouting at the ref. Went something like, " who's the barsteward dressed in ****
To me if someone hates somebody because of their colour they are racist. It is normal to use a discriptive word in conjunction with an abusive word towards a person who has upset you. ie ginger, lanky, stumpy, fat, skinny etc etc. Unfortunately we are not even allowed to acknowledge the fact that someone is a different colour and when we do it is automatically assumed to be racist. What a load of bollocks. I heard a story once about a guy who ran a garage who was taken to court for calling an employee a lazy black bastard. When asked if he had anything to say for himself he said, Well your honour, I knew he was black when I employed him, I just didn't know he was a lazy bastard. My last point is that in my opinion there are many dispicably racist people in this world of all shapes sizes AND COLOURS but no one should assume that we all are.
Jeezus Stokielad, that is completely over the top. You know the three things you should NEVER discuss in a pub; Religion Race And Politics Same on a forum methinks. As a matter of interest, what colour do you imagine me to be?
A racist is anyone white that says anything against a coloured person! Well that's how I have always seen it but what do I know? Giving this thread a wide berth now, so long Stokies!
Im not being funny fellas but arent all british people gettin a little pissed off at that the R WORD ! It dominates the whole british culture that we have ? Everyday we cant get away from the R word yet if it was to be pushed onto white people how many times would Racism come into it ? Its the biggest load of bollox dominating British Society ! Anybody that says diff is lying FACT ! I suppose we all carry on bendin over and ,, housin , feedin , payin , and basically making sure all imigrants are safe and sound causing chaos within our societies. This simply would not happen in any other Country ! FACT ! ITS A JOKE
Just a quick comment after reading your interesting perspectives on this topic....Hope you do not mind my chipping in. There is one thing I have not seen mentioned so far and I believe it is critical on determining whether a comment/remark is racist or otherwise. As far as the UK goes and quite likely most of the western world, the person 'abused' or spoken about has to be in a minority race group (minority being the key word) for it to be classed as race-ism. So as far as I can make out a white man in the UK could not be abused at racially inside the UK and again probably most of the western world. Over here in Thailand, as I am of UK origin and white, I could 'play the racist card' if I was abused by one of the local Thai population. Indeed all white people here are referred to as 'Ferang' (White Man) - not a single white person ever considers this to be racist in any context (mostly perhaps because we do not understand the other words in the sentence when they talk Thai). All black people are referred to as Negro's (another banned word in the UK) but again the black people here are not offended. Even if the Blacks & Whites were offended there is nothing can be done as the Thai authorities & law do not recognize racism in any shape of form as far as I know, and certainly not in the way the western world does.
Hope you don't mind another Canary chirping(!) in... Not quite true anymore Thai if we're talking in legal terms. What you're describing was the case until about ten years ago. However, the murders of Kriss Donald and Ross Parker established that attacks on white people on the basis of them being white could be found to be racist even though they are not ehtnic minorities in the places they were murdered
I think that using the word "******" is frowned upon so much because it comes loaded with the history of slavery, discrimination, and violence that white people have dealt out to black people over the past half a millenium and longer. These undertones simply aren't present when a black person calls a white person a "honky", when have black people oppressed whites in the western world? Now, you mightn't mean to evoke these sub-meanings if you call someone a "black bastard", or a "******", but many people did and still do, people who consider black people inferior. So calling someone a "black bastard" mightn't make you a racist necessarily, but firstly it's a stupid thing to do in today's climate, and secondly, it's almost impossible to tell if you meant it in a "you bastard... *identifying feature*" way, or if you genuinely meant it as a put-down of an entire race. And I think the same thing should apply the other way round, so that MP who said "White people are always trying to divide and conquer blacks" should be treated the same as a white person who said "People from Pakistan are lazy and run crap corner shops".
