Nice story! It is good that people can speak freely about differences without attaching any sense of superiority or inferiority to any remark . Whilst there are good people around who can celebrate diversity and accept different cultures, it would be wrong IMO to bury our heads in the sand and not see racism (I mean real even if it is casual and unthinking) in our midst. For every nice story like Donga's there are equivalent not so nice ones of black people being targetted with name calling and monkey gestures and noises being made whenever they walk in the street. Yes, let's condemn the opportunism of some in self promoting and hyping things around this issue but let's also make sure of where we stand when the real beast rears its head.
Are you in a round about way saying people have buried their heads in the sand regarding the reaction by of those not offended to the joke Woy made? Please enlighten us on what Woy did wrong. Black players boycotting the campaign because they see no real action against actual racist language and behaviour should be indication enough of what is being said on this thread is accurate. There is a storm of media reporting and self important individuals making comment and condemnation over a joke that referred to an astronaut and an animal. Now as far as I can tell, for those people who relate the monkey to black people in the joke Woy told are the only one's with racism in their thoughts, Townsend and Woy did not, the players did not. Should we exclude ever saying monkey when a black person is ever near by or present in any way? Should we extend this to anything black, like jokes including black paint, black sky or anything else that may be black. I am saying all of this in the context of what is happening with Woy and his joke and the stupidity that followed. The below picture will make my point better, had this been a monkey then racism would be suspected but because it is a dog it is ok, which is just totally ludicrous. A person can resemble something without it being racial in context at all. please log in to view this image Had this been a monkey racism would be claimed. if racism was perceived then it is a perception, not proof of racism. The story Donga told, if that guy in the supermarket was less enlightened he might have perceived racism and Donga clearly had that in mind due to his reaction at teh first pass in the supermarket. This being afraid to say normal things without any racial connotation is wrong and is in part fueled by the stupidity we are seeing over Woy's joke. Some people are terrified at being perceived as racist. it controls how they behave in the presence of black people they do not know personally, which is totally counter productive. Often perception of racism is a fault of the person perceiving it because they fail to take into account the perception of the other person who said the words that offended them. Kids who grow up without any perception of differences between races are the ones who may well not perceive racial implications of what non racially motivated things they may say innocently because they are oblivious to it. Why should we beat it into their heads? Woy perceived he was talking to a bunch of lads, made a joke. Why should he have had race in his mind? It's insane, we are trying to drive this thinking out of society and yet here we are trying to remind everyone of it. This goes for both black and white people. It should not be instantly perceived as racist or insensitive on the part of a black person just because they have a predisposition to detect anything that may seem racist. it should not control the thoughts and words of others.
Just on a tangent, it's interesting that you mention the Irish. Anyone called Murphy still has the sobriquet of 'Spud' attached to them. When you over-analyse that, and if you have any Irish in you (I have, who from Liverpool or Manchester hasn't?), you can easily become professionally offended. It takes too much effort though, tbh..... Listen, I wouldn't compare being called Spud with being compared to an ape, but it does depend on the context. We've already mentioned the bouncer/gorilla comparisons, and the cheeky monkey, and so forth. I had a workmate we called Gus because he was a hairy as ****. It's all about context, but to go back to the Suarez case (one last time, honest - for this thread ) the FA took context and intent out of it when they changed the evidence standard fro objectivity to subjectivity - i.e. was offence felt whether intended or not). People sometimes went on about balance of probabilities and reasonable doubt when that wasn't the important factor. The precedent was the change from objectivity to subjectivity, and also the suspension of assumption of innocence, which IS a factor, even in a civil court (or quasi one), as this wasn't a simple dispute between two parties: it was one person charged and another as chief witness. What's that to do with Roy? Well, Emerson said a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but... had one person, black, white or whatever, been offended by what Roy said (and despite their telephone investigation, someone must have been to have leaked it to the press) it doesn't matter what intent Roy did or did not have, he has broken E3(2), and by all their own precedents there must be an independent investigation and the original source should either stick by their guns or retract their objection - publicly. This is a morass of the FA's own making. Herbert is the **** that everyone on this post, and others have said. But he's the FA's own baby, and now he's crying to be fed.
FFS you are kicking an open door here.. And you have got the wrong end of the stick. I said earlier this whole thing is just plain silly because I cannot see how anyone could think it was racist...
And I have got to say this. Whilst it is bad to perceive any unintentional word/s as racist when none was intended or meant (like clearly in this Woy joke) it is just as bad to refuse to see real racism and dismiss it as political correctness gone mad. There are 2 extremes to this issue and both are bad.
yeah but the whole point is no one dismissed racist behaviour, the whole point is that it was perceived by those who are looking for racism in anything they see and hear. If you do that you will see it where it doesn't exist. Why can't you grip that? This whole thing is about the Woy joke. Someone shouldnt be afraid to say monkey because a black person is present or use the analogy in a very non racist way but the control freaks want Woy to go on a diversity appreciation course and all managers because of the racism they perceived. it's ridiculous and counter productive. If someone sees black people as no different than white people then why should they be concerned about saying things to a black person they would to a white person because if that was Rooney instead of Townsend the same joke would still have applied but it would not have caused a fuss cos Rooney is white, which is kind of racist in its self when you think about it
Wasn't the joke addressed to two black players anyway? Smalling being the player who was 'to feed the monkey' - makes it even less reason to be looked at as racist.
Well the joke only had one monkey and Townsend was the primate in the analogy, but the emphasis was on what the astronaut needed to do for the monkey and not who was what and why they were who. confusing myself now
Btw Sis, if you get a mo can you go on the United board and give Mongy a handshake from me. True United supporter - kicked the **** out of that plastic Matt on the Southampton game thread. Credit where its due.
Yeah except I think the Astronaut was anyone able to supply the ball to Townsend to set him on his way, not just smalling. Feed Townsend the ball so he can cause damage as he did have the Poles all over the shop in the first half. the only real monkeys were the poles, Townsend made monkeys out of them in that first 45. Don't tell Herbert on me
I've been tormenting him all day mate Usually simple logic and reasonable questioning his assumptions sends him into meltdown and he just goes missing, he snapped earlier and started ranting about Suarez and told me to go bum Suarez God bless him.
I think matth is that autistic youngster from bbc606. I remember him saying on there that he had some problems and the computer was his contact with the world - or something similar. He obsesses on certain players and is very child like/childish in most of his posts - but I do think he has a reasonable 'excuse'. He used to get ribbed mercilessly and lost it quite often, resorting to bad language etc. etc. [which wasn't allowed on the bbc site]. I don't go on the utd board so don't know what he's like on here, but sounds like it's the same lad.
I heard too he has a condition. he is definitely aware he is abusing people and he is aware enough to not respond to posts that prove him wrong, pretty much like any other member His meltdowns aren't actually proper meltdowns, he's harmless. It's just a bit of craic JB, it's not as if he had a HIAGesque meltdown. 606 was far worse, on here he gets ribbed but nothing serious. I think everyone and his dog knows something is up with the lad. I thought Gerrez was like Odo from game of thrones, he keeps smiling no matter what you throw at him
In an ideal world yes we should not see colour and gender or orientation...BUT we are where we are. I am not saying it is right or wrong but some are more sensitive than others. It is rarely clearcut. In many (most) cases it is a matter of perception and how when and why the words in question were delivered. In Roy's case it was innocent and harmless. But I could make a case for the same joke being offensive if delivered at a EDL or BNP rally. For every case of wrongful hyping or oversensitive condemnation (like Roy's) there may be a real case of offensive behaviour not being condemned because of people not wishing to make a fuss...
How can you extrapolate this to me being a witch hunter? Like everyone else I have my own views. As I said it is wrong IMO to be at the 2 extremes. Just as seeing racism where there is none or/and using it for self promotion is wrong, it is equally wrong to dismiss every case as silly and OTT.
