Rio Ferdinand Shows True Colours.

That's pretty small minded of you there Swarbs, there are black communities in many towns and cities in the UK and beyond so why single out Liverpool and Chelsea?

I couldn't give a flying one if two people of the same ethnic/racial background are having a pop at eachother but if what one of them condones and finds amusing causes offence i'd think it would be someone from a similar ethnic group that would complain.

 

No name, you're utterly wrong, but it is unsurprising that ethnic miniorities and special pressure group are convinced that the law was written with the express intent of allowing just them to be protected from harrassment whilst placing no obligations upon them to not harrass others.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

In this scenario 'B' is anyone who has direct access to contents of the information transmitted by 'A'. People have been prosecuted and/or dismissed from work for having 'private' conversations of racial/sexual content in open places such as messrooms, cafes and internet forums.

But, as said, bang-to-rights as he may be under the law and the FA's own precedents and rules, the probability of the CPS or the FA charging him are as remote as Ashley Young being dropped for England even when he stinks a tournament out. The politics and the protests would be so shrill and self-deluding (and also they wouldn't get the warm applause from the pc media that they got over the Terry and Suarez cases) that the FA won't act.

 

And this speech proves why the phrase is inherently racist.

Choc Ice is a slang term between two black men with one calling the other white inside or in other words white in behaviour. Well what's wrong with "white" behaviour as opposed to "black" behaviour? Are you arguing that there is a homogenised behavioural trait among all whites towards all blacks?

It's is soaked in the generalising idea that one is good and one is bad based on the colour of the persons skin. And it clearly represents that "white" is wrong.

I.e a black man with who tries to be like a white man (whatever on earth that means) is doing something wrong.

Not only is this racist and generalising towards whites. It's actually racist & generalising towards blacks. As has been clearly stated there is no homogenous black community based solely on the skin colour.

Example:

A Jamaican immigrant calling a another blackman from Kent a "choc ice" for believing he shares more cultural values with the white people in his community that he has grown up & worked with compared to the newly arrived Jamaican simply because they have the same skin colour. Shows the absurdity of this thinking.

Racist terms like Choc Ice, Uncle Tom belong with N*gger in the sordid past.

To continue to describe race relations & interactions on the over simplification of skin colour is racist in itself.

 

"......all these people that are up in arms about the 'choc ice' bit are probably white..and those of an ethnic standing understand exactly what it means because the truth is everyone who is a non white has an additional cultural influence..be it Asian,African,West Indian etc...and when an ethnic notices a fellow ethnic showing traits that seem to suggest that one has no care or pride in thier ethnic bckground usually gets called a 'choc ice'..'coconut' etc......it is a reflection on the ethnic not on the white person..wether this politically correct country likes it or not.....some of us have culturally defined aspects of our daily lives and thinking, and not just that what is acceptable for 'white' Britian..but for some reason white people seem to think this means that ethnics have an issue with whites..which it does not..it has a problem with ethnics who are not ready to fight their corner just so that they 'fit in' when 'fitting in' is not supposed to be a priority in this so called Democracy...i think it is a white person's insecurity if he has a problem with one black man telling another that he seems to have forgotten his roots a bit and should have not given evidence which has aided racism...like it or lump it but forget this pc **** but ethnics suffer from racism more and more should be done about it and Ashley Cole just aided the diluting of something negative."

let's cut this Gettysburg Address down to the quick - if I or a predominently white person said, on an open forum,that another white person who had black friends was a 'race traitor' you do not think at least ONE person would feel racially abused? And if I was, say, Joey Barton, you do not think there'd be action over it?

 

TBH page there seem to be a few on here disagreeing with me too. I have no agenda here TBH and dont necessarily agree with race relations legislation and its implementation. Just pointing out what is what

Even the above you quoted is less about Rio and more about the original choc ice tweet.

 

is it? and you came to this conclusion because?

There is a school of thought which says that your viewpoint is based on your racism, did you know that?

 

The laws on race relations were written for that purpose, to protect BME's from harrassment. No different than the discrimination laws that relate to women/homosexuality etc. There is terminology in relation to women and gay people that would get a non gay male into trouble but not a woman/gay man

I have never advocated this being right/wrong, just saying what IS.

Just want to say that I agree with your other post to an extent. People are getting too caught up o making this a 'against whites issue'

Terms like 'uncle Tom' had less to do with trying to be white and more about acting servile or excessively obedient

 

You see this is the issue with having proactive race laws in attempt to enforce overall equality. You continue to create "enemy" camps.

What is the ultimate aim: to provide a society that is equal in its protection & provision of opportunity for every citizen no matter colour, sex or creed etc. well then all we need is a law stating that & a punishment set out for those that deprive any citizen of that. You can make it a sliding scale based on judgement of accidental or deliberate if you want but that's all you need and correct social oversight to insure the law is enforced by the institutions that are required to do so.

To then make specific laws based on gender & race etc immediately undermines the founding principle. It separates these minorities out and elevates them, makes them different under the law and so continues to make them different within society.

Take any of the three cases in question. There shouldn't be a law saying that specific abuse towards specific individuals is a criminal offence.

Either we accept verbal abuse to one and other as part of a free society or we create a law that says any verbal abuse that can be proved to upset the "victim" is a offence.

Physical offences should be universal too; not worse depending on their motivation.

That is everyone being treated equally.

Unfortunately until our society matures to that point the very well meaning laws will continue to create divisions.

 

No it isnt. Calling some one a ''black ****'' is fairly straight forward as is calling a black person ******/darkie etc

The choc ice comment doesnt mean acting white as some are keen to try and make it mean.

 

Tbf tfwnn i only posted the MEN link and story to broaden the debate.

 

It's still suggesting a negative Generalised approach by "white people" as one big group that should be resisted not "obeyed" or shown servility.

It is a racist view. Unless someone can prove to me that every white person thinks & behaves the same way towards every black person.

A black man should have the right to prefer the company of a white man based on more than the colour of their skin. You might not like the traits that attract that relationship; be they self interest or that they have the same common disagreeable interests but you can't accuse someone of "betraying their race" just because you don't like the basis of said relationship.

If anyone created a phrase based on generalised assumptions of how an entire group of black people "are" it would quite rightly be labeled racist.

 

I disagree. Uncle tom is less about being subservient to whites and more about being subservient to authourity. Historically we know more about black slavery and the authourity happened to be white in this context. On a broader level these 'names' existed in countries where the authourity wasnt white. So in India there were similar names for people under the Moghuls as well as the British

What these names refer to (and I am using your post here) isnt about preferring the company of white people, its about forgoing your own personality/culture/traits etc and become somehing false and in the case of slavery to become a participant in the oppresssion of your own people

To try and simplify it as 'trying to be white' is offensive in itself IMO. which isnt implying/calling you racist by the way or anything like that

 

Ah ok, as long as you only have straight forward racism then, you prove my over simplification point quite nicely there.

Did you read John Ameichi's comments on this issue? They reflect a growing concern that these types of "race betrayal" phrases are used within specific black communities, particularly young black males in deprived areas to maintain the status quo. He's not the first black leader to raise this concern.

If white officials dare to suggest that the current imbalance in equality of opportunity is getting worse (despite the proactive race laws & routing out (ongoing & unfinished) of institutional racism) and that maybe, just maybe there is a specific cultural aspect to it as well.Particularly among young black men. I.e. you're a "choc ice" if you want to go to school, get an education "become part of the system". You're trying to enter the white mans world.

If the white official (as sadly most still are) points this out as one of many causes: they are a racist. So they don't & problem can't be solved.

If a black youth leader points this out he's a "choc ice" running the white mans agenda.

And some of the more radical special interest groups? : still complaining that not enough black men get to university.

It's exactly why Barnes hates that all the black role models in race campaigns are sportsmen. It's re-enforcing the narrow line of opportunities of black men to the physical: which I'm sure the likes of Griffin loves to point to.

This is the kind of race issues we should be focussing on. Not which name calling is worse & making petty justifications for your own prejudices.

So that little phrase has more meaning than you maintain and quite frankly harms more within the black communities that use it than any moderate offence taken by a white guy.

And that's my point no name mate; it's not a narrow simple subscription. That got narrowed in response counter response.

Well aware of the historical & cultural roots of the phrases and how they may even have been necessary at the time within whatever ethnic community . We had some of our own here in Ireland regarding interaction with state or states perceived to be unfairly treating sections of communities. We were talking specifically about the black community here but I'm more than happy to open it further as that us largely my point regarding equality laws & a push for equality of opportunity which I believe is more important.

 

If you are aware then that is sufficient. You will then acknowledge that it isnt as simple as being 'white'

 

Two supposedly upstanding members of the 'black community', i.e. Clark Carlisle and John Ama (Basketball player), have both said that Rio's comments, or his apparent agreement with the comments, are hugely offensive and should be taken as such! Are they wrong?

 

calling someone a **** is highly offensive and should be taken as such too

doesnt make it racist

rio is a thick ****er for saying anything, and a dick for what he did 'say'

of that there is little disagreement

 

Okay, let's call a spade a spade here....

I am black, or at least of the same ethnicity as Ferdinand...what he said, or agreed and laughed about, is one of the worst things that a person of our ethnicity can say about each other!

He claims ignorance as to its meaning, but we all know he knew what he was laughing about!

Now, I don't think he meant it in the way that it is being portrayed, however, context is all important here, and the fact that he said it is damming enough! He should know better, and the fact that he published his views to 3 million+ other people is totally out of order. And for that reason alone he should be warned about his conduct...how many kids have seen or heard about this and now think it is okay to use that terminology to black kids at school?

Regardless of what Rio meant, I can guarantee that a lot of black kids in School today have been called choc-ice, Rio laughs it of as a joke, but tell that to the thousands of black kids who have to try and understand why they have been laughed at at school today!

 

Apologies; I was attempting to respond to too many posts with one.although I would have assumed that if the entirety of all my posts had been read that it was clear that I thought that was an over simplification. I assume by your post that it is clear now.

I see you don't address the real issue however: that the phrase, what ever it's many levels of cultural meaning is firmly grounded in a "them & us" philosophy which has no part to play in a truly equal society. By continuing to use an outdated description based on outdated assumptions of racial interactions the person using it perpetuates the stereotypes and as can be seen by the initial debates on twitter & forums such as this keeps social divisions going.

I find it strange that you seem only worried about how it is perceived by certain white people correctly or incorrectly rather than the inherent dangers of its continued use by certain black people. It smacks of attempting to justify racism on some historical sliding scale of comparitive hurt.

You do accept that it is an out dated phrase in today's global society where adopting a mix of traditions & embracing other cultures even to the point of disagreeing with aspects of your own is not betrayal?

Do you also accept that it's continued use or even mis use can be detrimental to specific black individuals particularly young black males from deprived backgrounds in obtaining & persuing the same opportunities within the wider society they live; which is predominantly western white: in terms of cultural foundations & population.

If they live in fear of "betraying their culture" by taking opportunities that immerse them more in the white cultural hegemony which currently dominates the UK. How can they then break the stereotypes that are accused of being western white racism?

I repeat; the phrase holds more than the words and it's use goes further than its supposed meaning that you have maintained on here.

And you could apply this reasoning to any phrase which bases itsself in cultural stereotypes founded during a distinctly unequal society/societies.

 

I'd also be interested to see how many of that "number of people" are actually black and actually offended by what was said.

My point is there's no way of telling how many of those people actually take offence and how many are simply trying to stir up some trouble. Same as with the Rooney swearing thing and all those complaints the FA got the next week when Reina was caught swearing at the ref on camera. How many of those complaints do you think came from people who were genuinely offended and how many from Utd fans who just wanted to see if the FA would also punish a Liverpool player?

 

I find your decision to refer to Rio as a spade appallingly racist, along with your decision to publish these views to the 3+ other people on this forum. No matter how you intended it. I shall report you to the police forthwith