Racism in Football

[tomav84]

8 hours ago, Junxs said:

Dunno, felt like the England fans booing was louder than when Bulgaria were booing.

Just think we were quick to point fingers when in reality the issue is just as bad here

Edit: When you consider that a full stadium will have a much larger ratio proportion of people who are booing it really hits home. When you think 20k people booing the team they are "supporting", when all they are doing is taking a knee for equality awareness - it really really saddens me.

I've tried to have a rational conversation with a few of them on twitter to try to understand where they are coming from.. but I just can't see their point of view. They deny its an act of racism and that they dont believe in "Marxism" that BLM portrays. When I ask them what Marxism is, if they could explain it to me..  they tend to finish the conversation! 

Someone posted earlier that they should pan the camera over them when they do it, would be comforting at least to put some faces to these idiots who then have to answer to their bosses at work at least.  

They refuse to listen, like this chap:

 

They have it in their head that it's linked to BLM and nothing any player,  manager etc says will change their mind

[Panto_Villan]

41 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

They refuse to listen, like this chap:

They have it in their head that it's linked to BLM and nothing any player,  manager etc says will change their mind

That's hardly an unreasonable viewpoint though. Taking the knee in football was explicitly done in support of BLM when it began, and now football has decided to distance themselves from BLM without actually stopping doing the one gesture most heavily linked to BLM. So why not stop taking the knee and do literally anything else in support of generic anti-racism instead? Why not clearly distance themselves from BLM?

Sure, you can argue about whether the BLM political movement or the generic non-capitalised black lives matter social movement first popularised taking the knee, but it's impossible to deny that the two are inextricably linked at this point. So why not sidestep the issue entirely and do something other than taking the knee? Utimately actions speak louder than words for many people.

Feels like the PL / FA is scared of the backlash that might come if they properly distanced themselves from BLM, so they've kinda just done a half-arsed job of it and were hoping nobody would notice.

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Panto_Villan

[tomav84]

11 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

That's hardly an unreasonable viewpoint though. Taking the knee in football was explicitly done in support of BLM when it began, and now football has decided to distance themselves from BLM without actually stopping doing the one gesture most heavily linked to BLM. So why not stop taking the knee and do literally anything else in support of generic anti-racism instead? Why not clearly distance themselves from BLM?

Sure, you can argue about whether the BLM political movement or the generic non-capitalised black lives matter social movement first popularised taking the knee, but it's impossible to deny that the two are inextricably linked at this point. So why not sidestep the issue entirely and do something other than taking the knee? Utimately actions speak louder than words for many people.

Feels like the PL / FA is scared of the backlash that might come if they properly distanced themselves from BLM, so they've kinda just done a half-arsed job of it and were hoping nobody would notice.

 

well i guess the argument there is that many (myself included) believe that they have been suitably distanced. commentators never use the words 'black lives matter' anymore when referencing the taking of the knee. as you say, the taking of the knee is not synonymous with the BLM organisation, and there are numerous debates ongoing as to its origins. if the BLM had a guy on one knee as part of that logo or something then you'd have a point, but i think we're at the point now where people CHOOSE to associate the taking of the knee with BLM, despite quite considerable evidence to the contrary.

so yes, i consider it a very unreasonable viewpoint.

and what happens when players do a different gesture by standing arm in arm or something and people still boo because some other "marxist" organisation once stood arm in arm together?

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

well i guess the argument there is that many (myself included) believe that they have been suitably distanced. commentators never use the words 'black lives matter' anymore when referencing the taking of the knee. as you say, the taking of the knee is not synonymous with the BLM organisation, and there are numerous debates ongoing as to its origins. if the BLM had a guy on one knee as part of that logo or something then you'd have a point, but i think we're at the point now where people CHOOSE to associate the taking of the knee with BLM, despite quite considerable evidence to the contrary.

so yes, i consider it a very unreasonable viewpoint.

and what happens when players do a different gesture by standing arm in arm or something and people still boo because some other "marxist" organisation once stood arm in arm together?

I think you're massively underemphasising how much kneeling is associated with the BLM political organisation. Sure, you can debate the origins of the kneeling gesture - but remember the swastika had a long history before the Nazi party came along, and frankly its origins have become irrelevant at this point. Although there may be other possible interpretations of kneeling, support for the BLM political organisation is certainly one of the most obvious meanings (indeed probably the most likely one in my opinion).

So I ask again - why has football chosen to express their anti-racist sentiment in the only possible way that could be misinterpreted as support for the BLM political organisation rather than the generic black rights movement? It seems a bit rich to turn around and say "but how could you possibly think we support BLM?" when they've actively chosen to do the only possible thing that could cause people to think that. Sure, they've come out and said it means something different - but the whole situation could have been very easily avoided, no?

Also, remember that kneeling was explicitly linked to BLM when it was first done. The players had BLM on their shirts and everything. Nobody's going to boo players standing arm in arm as in your example above unless football has explicitly said they're doing it in support of 1917 Bolshevik revolution (or whatever) and printed famous Marxist names all over their shirts. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Panto_Villan

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

That's hardly an unreasonable viewpoint though. Taking the knee in football was explicitly done in support of BLM when it began, and now football has decided to distance themselves from BLM without actually stopping doing the one gesture most heavily linked to BLM. So why not stop taking the knee and do literally anything else in support of generic anti-racism instead? Why not clearly distance themselves from BLM?

It's possible to support the principle that "black lives matter" without aligning yourselves with a relatively fringe group that carries that as their name.  You can describe yourself as liberal without being a member of the Liberal Democrats. You can be conservative without supporting the Conservative Party. 

I'd say that the reason not to stress to much about distancing themselves is because it'll make no difference to the pricks booing them. They're not booing them because Tyrone Mings believes that the bourgeoisie are increasing their wealth via the exploitation of the proletariat. They're are doing it because they are racist pricks. 

[villa4europe]

It's not hard to distance it from BLM, in fact it's incredibly easy 

Look at Tyrone Mings taking a knee and think about the abuse he got in Bulgaria and the repeated nonsense penalties UEFA dish out for it happening time and time again

Don't look at Tyrone Mings and think that he wants to defund the police 

Simple 

[Panto_Villan]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

It's possible to support the principle that "black lives matter" without aligning yourselves with a relatively fringe group that carries that as their name.  You can describe yourself as liberal without being a member of the Liberal Democrats. You can be conservative without supporting the Conservative Party. 

I'd say that the reason not to stress to much about distancing themselves is because it'll make no difference to the pricks booing them. They're not booing them because Tyrone Mings believes that the bourgeoisie are increasing their wealth via the exploitation of the proletariat. They're are doing it because they are racist pricks. 

Maybe there are some racists at the grounds, but I don't remember seeing much booing of the Kick It Out racism campaign that's been going on for years and years? Surely that would have been booed too if everyone was just a massive racist?

I do understand the point you're making but it's probably not a good idea to immediately assume everyone booing is doing it because they're a racist, and it's not worth even listening to their concerns. Even if they are simpletons who don't understand much about politics beyond "I like the conservatives and Marxists are bad like Corbyn", can you not understand why someone would boo politics they disagree with? I'd probably have booed Tyrone Mings if he'd done an anti-vaxx gesture on the pitch, or shown a T-shirt in support of Brexit.

The crux of the issue I think is that a lot of people don't seem to think taking a knee is a political gesture so think any booing is a simple reaction to an anti-racism messeage, whereas the people booing are largely reacting to a strand of politics they disagree with rather than the anti-racist message itself. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think a lot of the problem would go away if the chosen gesture wasn't one that was so easily conflated with the Black Lives Matter political movement.

[Panto_Villan]

4 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

It's not hard to distance it from BLM, in fact it's incredibly easy 

Look at Tyrone Mings taking a knee and think about the abuse he got in Bulgaria and the repeated nonsense penalties UEFA dish out for it happening time and time again

Don't look at Tyrone Mings and think that he wants to defund the police 

Simple 

Cool, and why would that be any harder if the players instead linked arms in support of black rights rather than kneeling?

[villa4europe]

The problem with that is the belief that this BLM Marxist stuff is a complete smokescreen that racists are using to derail the taking of the knee and the message that was originally intended 

I firmly believe that 

And its working 

[villa4europe]

Just now, Panto_Villan said:

Cool, and why would that be any harder if the players instead linked arms in support of black rights rather than kneeling?

I don't care what they do

Nobody owns taking a knee

[tomav84]

13 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I think you're massively underemphasising how much kneeling is associated with the BLM political organisation. Sure, you can debate the origins of the kneeling gesture - but remember the swastika had a long history before the Nazi party came along, and frankly its origins have become irrelevant at this point. Although there may be other possible interpretations of kneeling, support for the BLM political organisation is certainly one of the most obvious meanings (indeed probably the most likely one in my opinion).

So I ask again - why has football chosen to express their anti-racist sentiment in the only possible way that could be misinterpreted as support for the BLM political organisation rather than the generic black rights movement? It seems a bit rich to turn around and say "but how could you possibly think we support BLM?" when they've actively chosen to do the only possible thing that could cause people to think that. Sure, they've come out and said it means something different - but the whole situation could have been very easily avoided, no?

Also, remember that kneeling was explicitly linked to BLM when it was first done. The players had BLM on their shirts and everything. Nobody's going to boo players standing arm in arm as in your example above unless football has explicitly said they're doing it in support of 1917 Bolshevik revolution (or whatever) and printed famous Marxist names all over their shirts. 

well no doubt if the clock could be turned back, they probably would've never said the words 'black lives matter' even if it was the movement they were referring to rather than the organisation. but i dont see them backing down now...the knee is here to stay whether people like it or not.

my interpretation was it was Colin Kaepernick that first took the knee during the US anthem...from day 1 that's what MY interpretation of the gesture was, and i had no idea if there was any links to the BLM organisation. as i previously said, i believe people are choosing to associate the knee with the BLM organisation when there are in fact other examples such as the aforementioned NFL player and also stretching back to martin luthar king days where the knee has been taken in protest for equality. they have tried as hard as they possibly can to give their reasons for it and disassociate themselves from BLM but many continue to ignore them.

that's why i maintain that if there was another gesture, people would find a reason to boo it. the knee is not 'owned' by BLM in the way that the swastica was adopted by the nazi party...as i said before, the BLM logo has no pictorial representation of anyone taking the knee. in fact i just had a quick look on the BLM website...no mention or picture of anyone taking any knee. so how it's been associated with this organisation i have no idea.

[tomav84]

5 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Maybe there are some racists at the grounds, but I don't remember seeing much booing of the Kick It Out racism campaign that's been going on for years and years? Surely that would have been booed too if everyone was just a massive racist?

I do understand the point you're making but it's probably not a good idea to immediately assume everyone booing is doing it because they're a racist, and it's not worth even listening to their concerns. Even if they are simpletons who don't understand much about politics beyond "I like the conservatives and Marxists are bad like Corbyn", can you not understand why someone would boo politics they disagree with? I'd probably have booed Tyrone Mings if he'd done an anti-vaxx gesture on the pitch, or shown a T-shirt in support of Brexit.

The crux of the issue I think is that a lot of people don't seem to think taking a knee is a political gesture so think any booing is a simple reaction to an anti-racism messeage, whereas the people booing are largely reacting to a strand of politics they disagree with rather than the anti-racist message itself. As I mentioned in my previous post, I think a lot of the problem would go away if the chosen gesture wasn't one that was so easily conflated with the Black Lives Matter political movement.

as would i

but this is not political...that's the key difference

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Cool, and why would that be any harder if the players instead linked arms in support of black rights rather than kneeling?

Because that would be bowing to the racists that are booing the gesture and appeasing them by changing it.

**** them. I was happy to see the taking the knee die out as I think it had run it's natural course. But now that it's being booed I back it more than ever.

 

I'd rather see them take the knee for 10 minutes at the start of the game than appease the racist words removed who are booing it.

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

The problem with that is the belief that this BLM Marxist stuff is a complete smokescreen that racists are using to derail the taking of the knee and the message that was originally intended 

100%

I said it before, nobody who is booing the knee gives a single **** about Marxism or even knows what it is. They are racist, and they are using that smokescreen to try and convince people that they aren't

[tomav84]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Because that would be bowing to the racists that are booing the gesture and appeasing them by changing it.

**** them. I was happy to see the taking the knee die out as I think it had run it's natural course. But now that it's being booed I back it more than ever.

 

I'd rather see them take the knee for 10 minutes at the start of the game than appease the racist words removed who are booing it.

the irony is that had no one booed it probably would've, probably before the start of next season too

[Panto_Villan]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Because that would be bowing to the racists that are booing the gesture and appeasing them by changing it.

**** them. I was happy to see the taking the knee die out as I think it had run it's natural course. But now that it's being booed I back it more than ever.

 

I'd rather see them take the knee for 10 minutes at the start of the game than appease the racist words removed who are booing it.

I don't understand how it would be caving to the racists to move to a pre-match gesture that they no longer have a plausible reason to boo?

If what you're doing is giving racists a smokescreen to be racist, perhaps stop doing it?

[tomav84]

14 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I don't understand how it would be caving to the racists to move to a pre-match gesture that they no longer have a plausible reason to boo?

If what you're doing is giving racists a smokescreen to be racist, perhaps stop doing it?

i believe there already is a pre match gesture that has no plausible reason to be booed

[Mark Albrighton]

42 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Cool, and why would that be any harder if the players instead linked arms in support of black rights rather than kneeling?

So you think if they said “we’re no longer taking the knee, but instead to convey the exact same message we’re now linking arms, or holding up a banner that says “‘black people are equal’ or ‘don’t be racist’”, that would be sufficiently different enough for people not to boo and jeer?

I really, really think people would still boo that.

As for the “kick it out” stuff. How did that present itself? A banner or two around the ground? Wearing t-shirts in the warm up? In other words it was well intentioned, but easy to ignore. At least this is getting people to discuss/debate the matter.

[Stevo985]

57 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I don't understand how it would be caving to the racists to move to a pre-match gesture that they no longer have a plausible reason to boo?

I don't understand how you don't understand that.

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, Mark Albrighton said:

So you think if they said “we’re no longer taking the knee, but instead to convey the exact same message we’re now linking arms, or holding up a banner that says “‘black people are equal’ or ‘don’t be racist’”, that would be sufficiently different enough for people not to boo and jeer?

I really, really think people would still boo that.

As for the “kick it out” stuff. How did that present itself? A banner or two around the ground? Wearing t-shirts in the warm up? In other words it was well intentioned, but easy to ignore. At least this is getting people to discuss/debate the matter.

Maybe I'm being naive, but I genuinely don't think people would boo that. Maybe there's some genuine racists mixed in so there'd still be a few boos, but I think most of it is down to the specific BLM link and the modern political environment where identity politics seems to be everywhere.

Personally I think the BLM political organisation is uniquely toxic because some leaders / high profile activists are on record saying some pretty divisive things (anti-white racism, the infamous Marxism quote, etc) and they peddle the sort of rhetoric that implies only black people get to define what racism is or that behaviour that is unacceptable for a majority (i.e. white people) is totally fine if done by a minority (i.e. black people) because of the power imbalance between those groups. It's quite a contrast from older messages of anti-racism which were focused primarily on achieving equal treatment of people from different races, and honestly it's a vision of society that I've got no interest in supporting despite being generally supportive of the black rights movement.

Anyway, I imagine the majority of people booing are white working class conservatives who would be happy to support a generic movement that was seeking equality for everyone, but have a strong negative reaction to BLM. In other words, I suspect they're not thinking "black people are worse than me" but rather "black people aren't better than me" when they boo players taking the knee.

That's my reading of the situation anyway.

Edited June 9, 2021 by Panto_Villan