Racism in Football

[Mic09]

Booing is idiotic.

But some symbols stick. This one seems to have stuck to BLM organization, and although players will underline it's not about that, well, there is a "historic" connection.

If I wear a swatica for good luck I will have some explaining to do, although that's what the symbol has meant for many. 

I think that fight against racism should continue and accelerate in many forms, but kneeling is just an unfortunate way to express this fight. 

If people want to kneel, good on them. But I think there could be better ways to promote the fight against racism.

[omariqy]

Are we comparing BLM to swastika now? 

[Mic09]

5 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Are we comparing BLM to swastika now? 

No, don't twist this please.

We are comparing a symbol and how it's been negatively charged although in itself it's harmless and well meant.

Edited June 10, 2021 by Mic09

[Keyblade]

4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Booing is idiotic.

But some symbols stick. This one seems to have stuck to BLM organization, and although players will underline it's not about that, well, there is a "historic" connection.

If I wear a swatica for good luck I will have some explaining to do, although that's what the symbol has meant for many. 

I think that fight against racism should continue and accelerate in many forms, but kneeling is just an unfortunate way to express this fight. 

If people want to kneel, good on them. But I think there could be better ways to promote the fight against racism.

The knee predates the organization though. The only reason the symbol is "sticking" is because people want it to and are trying to force the association.

[Keyblade]

Also from what I can tell, the reason that BLM the organization is so bad is because they said they want to subvert imperialism and capitalism? Is the issue here that they're too lofty as goals or?

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Also from what I can tell, the reason that BLM the organization is so bad is because they said they want to subvert imperialism and capitalism? Is the issue here that they're too lofty as goals or?

If you mix a simple message “treat people equally no matter their skin colour” with a political ideology, be that left or right or centrist, you surely dilute the simple purity of the cause of “don’t be racist” don’t you?

[Keyblade]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

If you mix a simple message “treat people equally no matter their skin colour” with a political ideology, be that left or right or centrist, you surely dilute the simple purity of the cause of “don’t be racist” don’t you?

That's a good point. However I doubt the booing is because they disagree with the effectiveness of the messaging though. Don't think people are boycotting England games because an organization is diluting their message with politics.

[a m ole]

If players were sitting cross legged instead, there is not a chance the booing would stop.

[Keyblade]

1 minute ago, a m ole said:

If players were sitting cross legged instead, there is not a chance the booing would stop.

Exactly. Some obscure association to something remotely objectionable will be pulled out of somewhere.

[Follyfoot]

7 hours ago, Keyblade said:

Exactly. Some obscure association to something remotely objectionable will be pulled out of somewhere.

If it’s all well and good saying that we should not stop the knee as this is bowing down to the racists but surely even if 20% stopped booing it is positive and further alienates and exposes  the rotten core. The fact of the matter is that some people are only going to become non-racist when they die and this is very much a generational thing which we are going to have to live through. Things have improved massively during my lifetime as they will continue to do during  yours. Keep the message out there, do whatever you have to do to make it stick with the older generations who are traditionally more racist and convert as many of those as possible by whatever means possible. We are not at the stage of being idealistic about what we do or not do yet , we keep plugging away and if you see the amount of proportionate change I have when you are older i think we will be pretty much there, unfortunately this is not going to happen overnight.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Follyfoot

[Panto_Villan]

10 hours ago, Keyblade said:

I mean why wouldn't you believe them, is the question? It's quite obvious this isn't being done in support of some amorphous organization, but even if you weren't clued in, why wouldn't you take the players at their word? Unless of course you need it to be about the organization so your opposition to it doesn't lose credibility. These are all general "you's"' by the way.

I think this is a good post. However, I think where we differ is with your subsequent post that the only reason people link BLM and taking the knee is because they've invented the link in their heads.

I think actually the situation is that kneeling is a politically charged gesture and the players are saying they aren't doing it to support BLM and asking us to take their interpretation of the gesture in good faith.

As you say above, there a good question as to why someone would choose not to believe them. You've given the answer why above. But that doesn't mean the gesture itself isn't loaded, and I don't think it would undermine your argument to accept that.

Edited June 11, 2021 by Panto_Villan

[villa4europe]

7 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I think this is a good post. However, I think where we differ is with your subsequent post that the only reason people link BLM and taking the knee is because they've invented the link in their heads.

They have

Because it justifies their racism 

Everything else is bollocks - they hate Marxism, they hate politics in football, they hate well to do footballers telling them what to do, it's an American problem and we shouldn't be involved, Floyd was a criminal so it doesn't matter what happened to him, its disrespectful to the police or the military - its all bollocks

[Stevo985]

There's a massive difference between kneeling being briefly associated with BLM, an organisation that has it's roots in a good cause but has lost it's way with some of it's political agendas

and the swastika which was adapted by arguably the worst person to ever walk the planet and resulted in the deaths of millions and millions of people.

 

It's not a fair comparison

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

They have

Because it justifies their racism 

Everything else is bollocks - they hate Marxism, they hate politics in football, they hate well to do footballers telling them what to do, it's an American problem and we shouldn't be involved, Floyd was a criminal so it doesn't matter what happened to him, its disrespectful to the police or the military - its all bollocks

I appreciate your anti-racist zeal but I'm not sure what this adds to the conversation. Nothing I said disagreed with what you're saying about racists - what you're saying still applies perfectly well if they're choosing not to believe the stated aims of the players when they take the knee. It's exactly what Keyblade said; they're doing it because it has to be about the BLM movement for them or the booing doesn't make sense.

My post was pointing out that kneeling can still be politically loaded and not undermine that point in any way. Even if support for BLM is a possible interpretation of kneeling, it still applies that the people booing are still choosing to disbelieve the players. You can still make all those points about racists talking bollocks if you agree with that.

There's been a lot of discussion over the past few pages by various posters about the history of BLM and how taking the knee is intertwined with that. Saying "they have, because they're racists" doesn't add anything to that discussion. It just seems like an attempt to derail a discussion that doesn't actually threaten your views in any way.

[Mic09]

51 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

There's a massive difference between kneeling being briefly associated with BLM, an organisation that has it's roots in a good cause but has lost it's way with some of it's political agendas

and the swastika which was adapted by arguably the worst person to ever walk the planet and resulted in the deaths of millions and millions of people.

 

It's not a fair comparison

At no point did I compare Hitler to BLM.

I gave an example of a harmless and meaningful symbol (like taking a knee) which has a long history being used in a specific, well intentioned way, that some people found unfavourable due to a way a political group has used it. 
 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Mic09

[HanoiVillan]

From Question Time last night, the vocal opposition is creeping up the government food chain:

It does pose the interesting question of if the players on the pitch want to end racism, and the fans in the stands who are booing want to end racism, then what exactly is 'divisive'?

[OutByEaster?]

I really do think the cross of St George is a much better comparison than the swastika if we're talking about the appropriation of symbols.

I think the association with the far right has been (thankfully) successfully overcome and the flag is back to just being a national symbol again to pretty much everybody, much like the knee has with it's association with BLMGN. Patriotism isn't racism although there are areas where you could claim a resemblance;, anti-racism isn't a revolutionary cry to overthrow all of the constructs of our society, although there are areas where it's possible to claim a resemblance - and the efforts of a couple of groups of extremists have (again thankfully) not  been able to twist either of those symbols to represent their own views. 

I don't see taking the knee as tainted, I don't think most people do, the vast majority of the people who have taken it up as a symbol of a struggle against racism don't share the ideals of BLMGN. I'd imagine that the vast majority of people who do it aren't even aware of the ideals of BLMGN, for just about everybody it's a wide movement of similarly minded people gathered around a hashtag that see racism in our society and want to change it.

The people who take the knee are as likely to agree with the manifesto of a radical marxist group as the people who have a little flag on their car during the Euros are to be members of the National Front.

 

 

[Stevo985]

20 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

At no point did I compare Hitler to BLM.

I gave an example of a harmless and meaningful symbol (like taking a knee) which has a long history being used in a specific, well intentioned way, that some people found unfavourable due to a way a political group has used it. 
 

I didn't say you did.

I said comparing taking the knee's association with BLM to the swastika's association with Hitler and the Nazis isn't a fair comparison.

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

From Question Time last night, the vocal opposition is creeping up the government food chain:

It does pose the interesting question of if the players on the pitch want to end racism, and the fans in the stands who are booing want to end racism, then what exactly is 'divisive'?

"pretty much" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there

[Panto_Villan]

I am actually going to disappear out of this thread for several days now because I need to get some work done. But the ground chat where I asked the black history lecturer about the topic threw up some more interesting things overnight that I thought I'd post, because I thought it was quite thought provoking. There were several people involved but the main two are the aforementioned academic who has fairly progressive views, and a lawyer who has much more conservative views.

• Everyone agreed booing wasn't something they personally wouldn't do, and that people shouldn't be doing it.
• The lawyer argued that his issue with the demonstrations isn't so much that they're supposedly in support of BLM, but that football isn't meant to be political and it seems as though football is sliding into a situation where political demonstrations are allowed, but only if they're on the "right" side of the argument (and it can be tough to ascertain what is racism and what is legitimate political expression if denying structural racism is treated as racism, but large swathes of the population support parties that don't believe it exists).
• The lawyer's solution was that all politics should be removed from the football pitch, including things like poppies etc that he doesn't personally see a problem with but others do. There was some discussion about how far "politics" goes - i.e. is it political to play the national anthem if the national team is playing? Is that something you accept when you decide to watch the national team play?
• The academic's view on that was that it's simply not possible to seperate politics and football. Any kind of commemoration of head of state / war dead / etc, or even simply playing the national anthem is inherently political. There was some chat about whether booing should be allowed. In the end the conclusion was that since everything is inherently political, and booing a political cause (e.g. the other side Brexit) is fair game, booing everything should be allowed (as should a player choosing not to sing the national anthem etc). But it's also legitimate for booing a cause to provoke a social backlash or a backlash in the press.
• The lawyer also made the point that the intention behind players kneeling was irrelevent in his eyes, as players have been banned in the past for far-right gestures that they claimed weren't intended to show far-right sympathies (or I guess the recent Cavani situation, where I think the general view is that he didn't intend to be racist but he still had to take the suspension anyway). He sees a double standard being applied whenever is convenient.

The views above aren't my own, but I thought I'd share as I think there's some interesting talking points there.