As far as sexual orientation is concerned I expect the royal family have been more than egalitarian in that regard but we have not known it. PS What is my sort?
Wow. This thread is funny really. I feel for Pass The Football. I made a comment (not really a silly one, as I didn't say it was racist or jump up and down about it) that suggested there was, and I quote "a little" (this means small amount for the dictionary quoters) xenophobia in the article. PTF tries do simply point out there maybe some validity in what I said and gets shot down. Can't we just be grown up and disagree with people's opinions without a song and dance? Manners maketh a man.
I'm reluctant to continue this discussion, I feel that explaining myself further will only prompt people to respond to tell me I'm wrong. To answer your question though, assuming it was asked in good faith: imagine you're a teacher with a classroom full of kids, and you pick out the ones with blue eyes, simply because they have blue eyes, and tell them how well they're doing. That implies the others aren't doing as well, even though that may not be true.
Oh ffs - you are obviously not wrong in your eyes, and i dont think that it is a case of you being 'wrong' - its just that you are so wrapped up in your crazy politically-correct world that you have lost sight of reality. To the vast majority of people there is no way that this article could imply what you say - but look, you believe what you will if its keeps you happy.
Hmm...maybe a better analogy would be; Imagine you're a commentator who highlights a)the achievements of women in the army, or b)the contribution of ethnic minorities to society. Both quite common observances in the media. This, in your eyes, would imply that a) male soldiers or b) Anglo-Saxon/Celtic citizens, weren't pulling their weight! As a white male, maybe I should be more offended! I note you used blue eyes as a criterion for some sort of classroom apartheid - are you implying that some sort of racist or supremacist connotations (Nazi link) apply to a celebration of "English" players? (Don't forget, some of these players were definitely not Anglo-Saxon). It IS possible to be keen on English players doing well, without being a raving xenophobe, Nazi, racist, etc. This may come as a surprise to some on here.
No those are not better analogies, in fact you are (whether intentionally or not) stretching my explanation to absurd conclusions which I in no way implied. Firstly, I chose eye-colour as the least controversial denominator I could think of and you've done exactly the opposite. Subtle xenophobia (and I accept not everyone will interpret it as such) is not the same as 'raving', 'racism' or 'Nazism' and I have never even remotely suggested this, quite the opposite in fact. Secondly, English players are (just about) a majority group in the premier league, so your comparison with 'women in the army' or 'ethnic minorities in society' is facile.
Yes, my analogies were absurd, as was yours. The only difference is that I don't take mine seriously My point is that it IS an absurdity to conclude that the celebration of English players could be alluded to as a xenophobic attitude towards imported stars(however "subtle"). The example of an apartheid selection of "blue-eyed" children in a classroom situation does not equate in any way to a natural celebration of achievements of home grown players- especially if we are linking it to prospective England teams in the future. Are you suggesting, by your analogy, that the foreign players will feel excluded, under-valued, and maybe even threatened if we are particularly pleased with our own lads? Didn't realise these millionaires were so sensitive? I don't think it will stop us from cheering Gaston if he scores at Anfield.
I'm as tired of it as you, believe me, but I'm obliged to defend myself when people wilfully misinterpret me.
All very well, but you did support the point of view that this article was a "a little bit xenophobic". With reference to the definition of "xenophobia", does this imply that the author of the original article only HATES or FEARS foreigners "a little bit" or are we misinterpreting you?
I think he did also mention that a large portion of this particular paper's target audience is probably a bit xenophobic, which I imagine isn't far off the mark. I bet a lot of people have reinforced their own xenophobic opinions by reading this article, even if that wasn't the writer's intent. To those whining about the arguing: to be fair, it's not off-topic arguing, and PTF should have the right to justify his opinions when they are criticised.
