I'm not racist but...

[Blue harvest]

2 things I've found bizarre from the John Terry: Anton Ferdinand

1) Everyone was up in arms over describing his skin colour, but no one complained about him calling him a c***!!

2) If John Terry was to verbally insult all opposing players by using their skin/hair colour as a description, would he have discriminated against Anton Ferdinand? As he would be doing it to everyone!

By describing MA and DL as Cockney or Southern ******, is this not using oppressive terminology?

 

[Hatem Is A Geordie]

2 things I've found bizarre from the John Terry: Anton Ferdinand

1) Everyone was up in arms over describing his skin colour, but no one complained about him calling him a c***!!

2) If John Terry was to verbally insult all opposing players by using their skin/hair colour as a description, would he have discriminated against Anton Ferdinand? As he would be doing it to everyone!

By describing MA and DL as Cockney or Southern ******, is this not using oppressive terminology?

This X100, wtf is up with that?

 

[Unbiased Opinion]

Also the excuse of, its ok where im from is not good enough, its just plain ignorance, how harmless something may seem to you, can be massively offensive to others, aka patting someones head as a act of enderment here if normal but in another culture its is very disrespectful

What your saying is stupid.

So your basically saying, not knowing something is wrong and doing it accidently is wrong, but if they didn't know it was wrong how can they be blamed for it being wrong? Do you expect people to know how everyone in the world feels and thinks about what is wrong.

For example some people might find pity exetremly offensive, does that mean everyone in the world who offers pity to these such people must be ignorant idiots who should have known better?

The suarez case for example, if what he said ( and its a big if ) is true about not knowing that it's very offensive, can you really blame him for a mistake?

 

[skalpel]

Yeah I did say it doesn't work that much better. You just have a chance to win a few points before the faith argument kicks in.

I don't consider racial abuse to be as bad either, in most cases. That is my personal opinion and personal bias I suppose. But like I said earlier I don't think that arbitrary decisions can be made regarding prejudice. Religious prejudice as history has proven with the Nazis can be the most destructive of all. Therefore being aware that it fits the criteria that I judge prejudice by I treat it just as seriously as any other.

The UK free speech laws are hypocritical and insane, I agree. I'm sure that a redheaded person who has been abused all their life just because of the colour of their hair feels the same pain as somebody with black skin who receives abuse. Neither can help the genetics of their birth and neither deserve to be abused, so it isn't fair that one receives legal protection and the other doesn't.

I still recall witnessing a redheaded girl at my infant's school when I was a kid crying her eyes out as a gang of kids surrounded her shouting "you're a fleabag, ginger, ginger, ginger .." on and on. The rumour had been spread that you got red hair if you had fleas and most of the kids (we were only 5 or 6) believed it. Nobody can tell me that her pain wasn't real, I witnessed it and I still feel shame to this day when I remember it that I didn't do anything to stop it at the time.

Actually, I'd say that Nazi anti-semitism was based on racist grounds far more than it was religion. Amongst many other things, the wanton destruction of cultural and historical art created by people of jewish ancestry is a good indicator of this. Felix Mendelssohn springs to mind, a man whose father refused his son's circumcision and who renounced the Jewish religious faith altogether, had his work shunned and destroyed and statues/memories of his contribution to music were removed or censored purely because of his racial ancestry.

 

[holystone]

hint:

I'm not racist but...some of my friends are black..........this alibi is always trotted out....Terry/KKK....etc etc

 

[Agent Bruce]

2 things I've found bizarre from the John Terry: Anton Ferdinand

1) Everyone was up in arms over describing his skin colour, but no one complained about him calling him a c***!!

2) If John Terry was to verbally insult all opposing players by using their skin/hair colour as a description, would he have discriminated against Anton Ferdinand? As he would be doing it to everyone!

By describing MA and DL as Cockney or Southern ******, is this not using oppressive terminology?

You liked this comment so much you decided to post it twice, or was the second post a mistake?

 

[Donkey Toon]

Actually, I'd say that Nazi anti-semitism was based on racist grounds far more than it was religion. Amongst many other things, the wanton destruction of cultural and historical art created by people of jewish ancestry is a good indicator of this. Felix Mendelssohn springs to mind, a man whose father refused his son's circumcision and who renounced the Jewish religious faith altogether, had his work shunned and destroyed and statues/memories of his contribution to music were removed or censored purely because of his racial ancestry.

I agree that the Nazis persecution of the Jews was mostly based on a racial hatred rather than religious. But there has always been a confused perception of Jews in that they uniquely as far as i'm aware seem to be perceived as either. The pogroms carried out in most other countries against them though, whether in Russia, England or others were usually based on religious grounds. Nazi records of the Wansee Conference actually note the problem of identification caused by countries like the UK and the USA because Jewishness was only recorded as a religion and not racial.

Because of that I consider that Anti-Semitism (a poor phrase ill fitted for purpose anyway*) can be either.

* By this I mean it is too general. Anti-Semitism implies a dislike of Semitic people, based on those peoples who are from the Semitic linguistic grouping. But Arabs are also Semitic people and many Arabs due to the Israeli situation dislike Jews. If you called an Arab an Anti-Semite you would technically be saying that he also disliked himself and the rest of his people as well as Jews. There really should be a more specific term for this. Anti-Hebraic maybe?

 

[Blue harvest]

You liked this comment so much you decided to post it twice, or was the second post a mistake?

Not quite sure what happened there.

 

[skalpel]

I agree that the Nazis persecution of the Jews was mostly based on a racial hatred rather than religious. But there has always been a confused perception of Jews in that they uniquely as far as i'm aware seem to be perceived as either. The pogroms carried out in most other countries against them though, whether in Russia, England or others were usually based on religious grounds. Nazi records of the Wansee Conference actually note the problem of identification caused by countries like the UK and the USA because Jewishness was only recorded as a religion and not racial.

Because of that I consider that Anti-Semitism (a poor phrase ill fitted for purpose anyway*) can be either.

* By this I mean it is too general. Anti-Semitism implies a dislike of Semitic people, based on those peoples who are from the Semitic linguistic grouping. But Arabs are also Semitic people and many Arabs due to the Israeli situation dislike Jews. If you called an Arab an Anti-Semite you would technically be saying that he also disliked himself and the rest of his people as well as Jews. There really should be a more specific term for this. Anti-Hebraic maybe?

Yeah it is pretty ambiguous and unique. I think this is what allows race hate to be hidden under the religious guise; and this is the sore point for a lot of Jewish people. It's tough to determine really because as it is such an ancient religion that is so tied to a certain race of people it is hard to separate the two.

 

[LTF]

2 things I've found bizarre from the John Terry: Anton Ferdinand

1) Everyone was up in arms over describing his skin colour, but no one complained about him calling him a c***!!

2) If John Terry was to verbally insult all opposing players by using their skin/hair colour as a description, would he have discriminated against Anton Ferdinand? As he would be doing it to everyone!

By describing MA and DL as Cockney or Southern ******, is this not using oppressive terminology?

Well. is it oppressive, or shall we be grown ups and say it's just plain rude and vulgar, I personally can't abide JT, I get annoyed because the fact that he slept with a friend and England team mates partner overshadowed the fact he abused his position as National team captian and touted the box he was given at Wembley (as Captain) to the highest bidder.

I do not think for for one moment John Terry is a racist, did he use racist language, yes, definitely.
JT was wrong for the way he spoke to Ferdinand, shoddy behaviour from him, ban the swearing, (cite public decency,) not sure what law/rule to use, but it will make people think twice about their behaviour.

 

[Toon_Tiger]

What your saying is stupid.

So your basically saying, not knowing something is wrong and doing it accidently is wrong, but if they didn't know it was wrong how can they be blamed for it being wrong? Do you expect people to know how everyone in the world feels and thinks about what is wrong.

For example some people might find pity exetremly offensive, does that mean everyone in the world who offers pity to these such people must be ignorant idiots who should have known better?

The suarez case for example, if what he said ( and its a big if ) is true about not knowing that it's very offensive, can you really blame him for a mistake?

no its not being stupid.. its called being educated.

if i go to a foreign country i will respect that country and its customs. its just plain ignorance to not take any note.

in Brazil age of consent is 14 does that mean a Brazilian can live here have sex with 14 year olds and go.. hey i didnt know it was wrong here?

you may think one is an extreme but both acts are illegal in this country.. ignorance isn't an excuse

 

[LTF]

no its not being stupid.. its called being educated.

if i go to a foreign country i will respect that country and its customs. its just plain ignorance to not take any note.

in Brazil age of consent is 14 does that mean a Brazilian can live here have sex with 14 year olds and go.. hey i didnt know it was wrong here?

you may think one is an extreme but both acts are illegal in this country.. ignorance isn't an excuse

Couldn't agree more, Mr LTF worked overseas, I went to visit him in India when he worked there, I reseached the culture etc., before I went to visit, also researched on his behalf as he was going to be a resident there for some time, albeit temporarily.

The thing is, these people (footballers) are megarich, they have paid advisers, as do the clubs, to oversee their, let's be polite and say "Well being". Is anyone trying to say clubs and agents are prepared to leave these huge investments (the player) to their own silly devices.
I think not.

 

[Agent Bruce]

Not quite sure what happened there.

Sorted.

 

[LTF]

Double post???????????

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

no its not being stupid.. its called being educated.

if i go to a foreign country i will respect that country and its customs. its just plain ignorance to not take any note.

in Brazil age of consent is 14 does that mean a Brazilian can live here have sex with 14 year olds and go.. hey i didnt know it was wrong here?

you may think one is an extreme but both acts are illegal in this country.. ignorance isn't an excuse

You're displaying a completely intolerant attitude towards the rest of the world. It takes time for people to intergrate into country and learn the differences between their own country and here. Have you even considered how much there is to learn? We have a law for ****ing everything! Its not ignorance at all. Its about accepting there are differences on a variety of subjects across countries all across the world. Whether that be race, religion, age of consent and a multitude of other subjects. Comparing the someone contravening race laws by using offensive language and ignoring the age of consent are very different levels of crime for most sane people so that's not really a very good analogy.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

Couldn't agree more, Mr LTF worked overseas, I went to visit him in India when he worked there, I reseached the culture etc., before I went to visit, also researched on his behalf as he was going to be a resident there for some time, albeit temporarily.

The thing is, these people (footballers) are megarich, they have paid advisers, as do the clubs, to oversee their, let's be polite and say "Well being". Is anyone trying to say clubs and agents are prepared to leave these huge investments (the player) to their own silly devices.
I think not.

Its one thing researching the country you're going to live in, but another thing entirely to understand all the differences in law between one country and another. You're looking at it from your point view. Try and view from a footballer (who is unlikely to be very bright), do you honestly think they are going to spend many moons learning the diffferences? Transfer deadline day alone makes a mockery of that suggestion! You can be signing for a club at short notice one night, and on the pitch the next! So if that is the scenario and the player through pure innocence says something not considered acceptabel ion this country, do we just say "so what you should have known"? That is just a backward way of dealing with things. We need a change of culture across the board or the situation will happen time and again.

And you're wrong if you think these money hungry agents and the clubs are going to the far end of a fart to educate these footballers. The agents are bothered about one thing, their cut. The club is focused on one thing, their performance for the shirt. There is no where near enough done by the players themselves, the clubs or the FA in terms of using education to help alleviate some of the problems we face in cultural differences.

I have laughed my socks off at the arrogance of our nation. Not only has Suarez now been moreorlees labelled a racist, we've also in some quarters decided that it is wrong that they use the word negro the way they do in Uruguay (and many other countries). There are people sitting in this country saying "well they're miles behind us and they haven't really tackled racism". What a crock of ****. They have less racial harmony problems than us, and were campaigning for black rights while we were still opressing them as best we could!

 

[The mighty DeBOOSHy]

Its one thing researching the country you're going to live in, but another thing entirely to understand all the differences in law between one country and another. You're looking at it from your point view. Try and view from a footballer (who is unlikely to be very bright), do you honestly think they are going to spend many moons learning the diffferences? Transfer deadline day alone makes a mockery of that suggestion! You can be signing for a club at short notice one night, and on the pitch the next! So if that is the scenario and the player through pure innocence says something not considered acceptabel ion this country, do we just say "so what you should have known"? That is just a backward way of dealing with things. We need a change of culture across the board or the situation will happen time and again.

And you're wrong if you think these money hungry agents and the clubs are going to the far end of a fart to educate these footballers. The agents are bothered about one thing, their cut. The club is focused on one thing, their performance for the shirt. There is no where near enough done by the players themselves, the clubs or the FA in terms of using education to help alleviate some of the problems we face in cultural differences.

I have laughed my socks off at the arrogance of our nation. Not only has Suarez now been moreorlees labelled a racist, we've also in some quarters decided that it is wrong that they use the word negro the way they do in Uruguay (and many other countries). There are people sitting in this country saying "well they're miles behind us and they haven't really tackled racism". What a crock of ****. They have less racial harmony problems than us, and were campaigning for black rights while we were still opressing them as best we could!

I don't think anyone is criticising Uruguays culture are they? I think we understand that they use different words for things. Fair enough.

But using Negro in a derogatory way is racist (Even in Uruguay! Just because they don't treat racism in the same way is a moot point). Suarez knew exactly what he was doing (I think it's naive to believe he thought what he was saying was ok), he was trying to wind evra up and it's despicable.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

I don't think anyone is criticising Uruguays culture are they? I think we understand that they use different words for things. Fair enough.

But using Negro in a derogatory way is racist (Even in Uruguay! Just because they don't treat racism in the same way is a moot point). Suarez knew exactly what he was doing (I think it's naive to believe he thought what he was saying was ok), he was trying to wind evra up and it's despicable.

I'm not getting into cultural differences with you but if you think calling someone a "negro ****" on a football field or anywhere else in life in Uruguay would be considered racist then you're wrong. They simply don't view using a word to describe someones appearance whether that be black, ginger, blonde, fat or otherwise. Now I don't know why this is, perhaps they don't have the same history of oppressing blacks but I couldn't really comment without researching their history.

There have been a lot of comments I've read across various forums from the general public and also pundits, but also on chat shows etc where people are making comments about - how can they say that in Uruguay, that's disgraceful etc - along those lines. One guy on a phone in even suggested that FIFA should consider banning them until they sort their country out! It's just hilarious our arrogance for me, we always think we're right and the way our country operates is correct.

 

[The mighty DeBOOSHy]

I'm not getting into cultural differences with you but if you think calling someone a "negro ****" on a football field or anywhere else in life in Uruguay would be considered racist then you're wrong. They simply don't view using a word to describe someones appearance whether that be black, ginger, blonde, fat or otherwise. Now I don't know why this is, perhaps they don't have the same history of oppressing blacks but I couldn't really comment without researching their history.

There have been a lot of comments I've read across various forums from the general public and also pundits, but also on chat shows etc where people are making comments about - how can they say that in Uruguay, that's disgraceful etc - along those lines. One guy on a phone in even suggested that FIFA should consider banning them until they sort their country out! It's just hilarious our arrogance for me, we always think we're right and the way our country operates is correct.

Yes I agree we shouldn't dictate how other countries should be run (unless it's a more serious human rights issue etc). But I don't understand your point about something "not being racist in Uruguay". By the definition of racism, it's racist, full stop. What your saying is that it is treated differently over there, so that it is not offensive to them. It's still racist though - hopefully you can understand my point there, I'm not disputing that they don't find it offensive, or saying that they should, but it's racist to mention someones race in a derogatory way.

Also, Suarez must have been fully aware his comments were not only racist but purposefully inflammatory in England, so I don't think it's a valid defence to bring his culture into it.

 

[Warmir Pouchov]

Yes I agree we shouldn't dictate how other countries should be run (unless it's a more serious human rights issue etc). But I don't understand your point about something "not being racist in Uruguay". By the definition of racism, it's racist, full stop. What your saying is that it is treated differently over there, so that it is not offensive to them. It's still racist though - hopefully you can understand my point there, I'm not disputing that they don't find it offensive, or saying that they should, but it's racist to mention someones race in a derogatory way.

Also, Suarez must have been fully aware his comments were not only racist but purposefully inflammatory in England, so I don't think it's a valid defence to bring his culture into it.

There is not one universal definition of racism and this is the most common misconception. It is far far too complicated a subject and the word racism has been diluted and diluted some more throughout the years depedning on what country you're in. I couldn't even define what racism means in this country anymore. I just work by my own views and hope they are not offensive. there is only so much you can know. There are many things in this country that we would consider racist that would not be in other parts of the world. As I say the assertion by people that Bellamy was racist for calling Tim Krul a dutch **** is a prime example. Some people in this country view that as racism. I don't whether the law would, but if it did then I would just see that as absolutely ridiculous.

Our laws that govern racism and how we define are not the universal world law. Now I don't know what their laws state, but clearly they either dictate that this is not racist behaviour or its simply not seen as enforceable. Either way racism in Uruguay has a very different definition to what racism means in England. You're simply talking about what you understand racism to mean.

I agree that Suarez was deliberately trying to wind up Evra. As I say that is ok in Uruguay, its not here and therefore they were right to hand out a punishment. 8 games is just a joke and way over the top. Indeed all they've managed to do as a result is spark a huge debate which has complicated the matter further.