Exactly. Yet we constantly get this BS angle of clubs being racist and not employing enough black and/or other ethnic managers.
In order to fix something you have to first assess why it's not working. In this case questions have been raised continuously about the lack of black coaches/managers. There aren't enough around and if you want to alter that you have to ask why that is and then address the 'problem'. There doesn't seem to be a problem with white players going into management - why aren't black players following suit? Bearing in mind there only seems to be a small percentage calling for more black coaches so it's an exercise for them to work on. But one thing's for sure, we won't get more blacks unless and until they feel the need to take it up as a career.
Exactly, they either want to manage or they don't. Why is anyone saying "NO we MUST have black managers!!" Like someone said, the coaching badges are there for whoever wants them. Clubs are not racist. You might get individuals in clubs that are racist, but a club will employ the best manager they can find who wins them matches and makes them money, and I would bet vital parts of my anatomy that as long as said manager bought home the bacon (or the silverware) that clubs wouldn't give two ****s what colour his skin was.
I have a slightly different perspective on this because I studied racism at uni and so I know there is both overt and covert racism going on in all walks of society, sport being one of them. It's not as simplistic as - not many blacks are going in for their badges so no wonder there aren't many about, it's their choice etc. If you dig deeper the reasons for them not doing their qualifications would be uncovered. Even if the reason for every single black player was 'I can't be bothered' then at least we would have an answer and the constant musings from several quarters as to why there's a lack of numbers would be put to bed once and for all. I'm not going to bore people with % this and that but if there's an area in any industry that has a relatively large number of women/blacks/Asians/disabled etc .... does it not seem just a little bit odd that they are not represented at management level? I'm not suggesting that racism or sexism is the cause but suppose for one minute that it was , how would we ever deal with it if we refused to believe it existed?
You can study racism at uni...? What sort of job does that help you get then? PS...no offence intended JB
I got my masters degree in Humanities with my dissertation focussed on blacks being a part of society but not an integral part. I can't remember the title I already had a job and I studied part-time as a mature student.
This affirmative action and quotas have a detrimental effect. People work their way into positions on merit and people can have the idea they are only there because of "quotas" and "affirmative action". I know one thing, you can be luminous green, as long as you bring in the results and don't piss off your bosses, you will have a job in management
Indeed, the language these clubs understand is money. They care not a jot how it's obtained. Why would there be racism at management level but at player level? Players are paid more and are the money makers. Surely if clubs had a problem with black managers they would have the same problem with black players. Of course there is covert racism, but the fact of the matter is, there isn't a huge amount of black managers in English football that are unable to get jobs. It's that simple.
Ever wonder how a lot of African Americans have Irish last names? Is not because of Irish slave owners, no erase that foolishness……don’t think Gone With The Wind and the O’Hara plantation. What a lot of people don’t know is that Irish were slaves too, hundreds of thousands were sent to work in the West Indies and they blended with the black slaves thus we have Irish names like McFadden, McDonalds, etc. They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children. Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives. We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery? King James II and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor. The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves. Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white. From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well. During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle. As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts. African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company. England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat. There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery. But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong. Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.
Hash I've seen that claim before but it's mostly myth. I don't intend to go full on in this subject or get all academic but there's overwhelming evidence, that the Irish were never subjected to perpetual, hereditary slavery in the colonies. The tale of the Irish slaves is rooted in a false conflation of indentured servitude and chattel slavery. These aren't the same. Indentured servitude was a form of bonded labour, whereby a migrant agreed to work for a set period of time (between two and seven years) and in return the cost of the voyage across the Atlantic was covered. Indentured servitude was a colonial innovation that enabled many to emigrate to the New World while providing a cheap and white labour force for planters and merchants to exploit. Those who completed their term of service were awarded ‘freedom dues’ and were free. The vast majority of labourers who agreed to this system did so voluntarily, but there were many who were forcibly transplanted from the British Isles to the colonies and sold into indentured service against their will. While these forced deportees would have included political prisoners and serious felons, it is believed that the majority came from the poor and vulnerable. In any case, all bar the serious felons were freed once the term of their contract expired. Some of the Irish in the Caribbean were indentured slaves but the vast majority were sent over as convicts to penal colonies where they intermingled with the black population, the resulting mixed race children would have been given Irish surnames when their Irish fathers married their black mothers, or when their unmarried Irish mothers named children after themselves. So the place is still awash with Rileys, Ryans, Daleys and Farrells. Similarly, Irish immigrants fleeing the famine in Ireland flocked to the ports of Boston, Philadelphia and New York again living side by side and intermingling with the other poor in America, the blacks > more black children with Irish surnames. None of them were slaves. In fact 1 million Irish arrived in America during the famine years, the largest influx from any country.
James II? 1625? RC king transporting Irish Catholics? I got this far and realised we'd entered the Sis-school of history. Your Disneyfied version of the poor Irish and blacks huddled together in downtrodden misery is worthy of Sorcese's Gangs of New York, too. Look up the race riots of New York during the Civil War when the Union tried to introduce conscription. And btw, the slaves took their western names from their slaveholders and, more specifically, their drivers - a vocation at which many Irish immigrants excelled at.
Not my version , I didn't know any of what I copy pasted. I knew of the "black Irish" of Montserrat and that's as far as my knowledge went. The author being a black west Indian I'm sure he knows his history more than you or I.
What are you on about, what has this to do with me, you have spewed you own fair share of errors pal, but you forget your own errors of course They were political prisoners. Official accounts give 2000 to 3000 as a number, but unofficial numbers go a bit higher between 15000 and 30000. It wasn't because they were catholic. They didn't want James the **** as a king. It happened just a disagreement in the final number of exiles into slavery. Apple? Your misplaced arrogance is almost as great as your ignorance
Don't let him misdirect you with pseudo history mate, it happened, just the context was different and the actual number is speculation. It wasn't because they were catholic. They were nationalists, or anyone who didn't support the monarchy of King james In such purges you have people that also take an opportunity to deal with opponents. No doubt anyone even remotely suspected was rounded up via proclamation and shipped off.
