Jump to content

Racism in Football


Zatman
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • VT Supporter
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, AvonVillain said:

one aspect of this is John Harris chose that man to depict his agenda....of course most of us would cringe at such behaviour....I have run pubs, they are familiar, I turfed out, such characters, with not such fond memories.

I find it cringeworthy, when I hear fans abusing the opponents national anthem, never mind individual players.

but the Englishness, as some choose to question, is not defined by a bolshy right wing thug or a left wing marxist.....There are plenty of honest, god fearing folk, with not a racist bone in their bodies, proud of England and its traditions, who feel strongly of upholding those precious traditions , that our men folk fought to preserve in freedom.

Englishness may take on an entirely different interpretation from what you would likely experience in built up Inner city life.....to the quiet tranquil exisistence in Rural England and village life.

There is not a single dimensional view Imo as to what Englishness means.....I voted for Brexit, but I respect, every nation and its inhabitants, who all have good and bad in them. I voted to take back control of our affairs, our borders, our justice system ( which needs reform) and our sovereignty......nothing whatsoever to do will unliking europeans, whic some pedal....don't want to get in to Brexit debate, but leavers were branded for one mindset, when in fact it consisted of many varying viewsor motives.

There are many examples of thuggery in any political persuasion, John Harris is just promoting his view.

 

 

Edited by TRO
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TRO said:

one aspect of this is John Harris chose that man to depict his agenda....of course most of us would cringe at such behaviour.

When you say 'chose' and 'agenda' I think that slightly tilts the motives as being somehow suspicious, whereas in reality it's an astute and considered recent example of the topic at hand, by an obviously left-leaning journo. You are entirely right, most of us would cringe, but also be fascinated by such behaviour, like a journalist, reporting on his own daily experience.

I'm actually not someone especially interested in labels, but my own experience has definitely taught me about the difference between someone being moronic and unthinking in the moment, and a calculated, determinedly hateful bias toward a different ethnicity. Even very recently after the penalty misses; as John Harris was mentioning, the difference being the stuff he describes in the column is a kind of pathetic loser type, instead of some of the ugliest, genuinely shocking, inhumanly venomous awfulness I have ever heard in my life. There is a definite difference between the two, just as there's a difference between the half-wits voting for Brexit through rabble rousing stupidity, and the folk like you, I will charitably, as is my theme here, assume. Even though I disagree with you entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AvonVillain said:

And so it starts again. Sadly, it's beyond a humble football forum to get to grips with much more than... football, it seems.

There are plenty of people who would say this forum hasn’t gotten to grips with football either. 

Edited by sparrow1988
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I can't work out who 'David' is going back through the thread, I think it may have been a typo. But yes, it's a very racist thing to say.

David is a mate of his since his school days who is an Aborigine. He mentioned it in that same post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hear Lewis Hamilton got some social media racial comments since winning yesterday. 

My stance. I believe in a campaign against the hate, but I think the media make it worst by telling us about every racial social media post to sports personalities. This is what the racists want. They want to be heard, if we stop making every racist post a story it may calm down a little.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Hear Lewis Hamilton got some social media racial comments since winning yesterday. 

My stance. I believe in a campaign against the hate, but I think the media make it worst by telling us about every racial social media post to sports personalities. This is what the racists want. They want to be heard, if we stop making every racist post a story it may calm down a little.

I agree and I dont agree. I agree the media are loving these stories as it means they dont have to do anything journalistic but I think it should rightfully be called out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Zatman said:

I agree and I don't agree. I agree the media are loving these stories as it means they don't have to do anything journalistic but I think it should rightfully be called out

Imagine the ones doing it though "that was me that was". They shouldn't be called out, just ignored, just like the terrorists, they want and enjoy the publicity. I'm sure. they also love hearing the fact it's effecting the person they sent it to.

Edited by foreveryoung
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

Imagine the ones doing it though "that was me that was". They shouldn't be called out, just ignored, just like the terrorists, they want and enjoy the publicity. I'm sure. they also love hearing the fact it's effecting the person they sent it to.

thing is though bringing the abuse to the public eye has enabled authorities to track them down. had ian wright ignored the hate the kid in ireland sent him he'd have never been caught. OK the judge inexplicably let him off but there have been other cases too where the power of social media has enabled abusers to be caught. ignoring them means they can continue doing it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/07/2021 at 18:06, sparrow1988 said:

Fair enough mate. I refuse to get into discussions with people who claim that organisations like the BBC have a bias. The BBC annoy people on the left and right with both sides claiming that the BBC are biased. If they are pissing both sides off then there probably just providing a balanced opinion on matters. I mean the BBC left leaning? This is a company who until very recently employed Andrew f***ing Neil. I'm sure that you've got examples to show that they are loony lefties but as I said it is just a fairly neutral organisation.

Also, I never called Australia as a racist country. I said it has a problem with racism as does nearly every country, maybe even all.

And on your last line, the racist is definitely the worst of the two people. The other person is not right and has a lot to learn but yeah, the racist is definitely worse.

EDIT: And just for future reference, just how long does someone have to live in Oz before they can have an opinion on it? Is it that for the first few years people there make racist comments sometimes and then after you've served the sufficient amount of time they tell you it was just a big joke and everyone has a laugh?

I have a problem with the media in general because they don't report the facts, just what will get viewers or clicks.

I couldn't give you a timeline, we are a multi-cultural society and each of those cultures has their own psyche within the Australian experiment, its not a one size fits all.

But you can't judge Australians by your own standards, with an untrained ear, not knowing the context, history or their background. Many people around the world made simplistic assumptions, like yourself, based on the comments of Fraser Anning. That says more about the people who believed the media's narrative than being interested and understanding why and in which context the comments were made. His comment was insensitive, not racist.

Just because someone speaks plainly and isn't politically correct, doesn't mean they are a racist.

I know when I hear racist comments, I used to travel frequently for work. One week in Darwin, the next in Alice Springs, Cairns, Adelaide etc etc. But its far less common than the narrative your projecting. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/07/2021 at 21:15, HanoiVillan said:

If I were going to write a furious denunciation of someone for allegedly misunderstanding my country's politics, I might have pause for some reflection if I had to start by saying 'Your problem is you take comments literally rather than the scope and meaning of what they were intended and in the context they were intended'.

Still, it's probably just as well that 'a handful of racist comments does not make a racial (sic) nation', because otherwise people might draw the wrong conclusions from comments like:

Doubtless the problem is me 'tak[ing these] comments literally', my bad.

They would because you have to understand the history of the aboriginal people, which clearly you don't.

They migrated into Australia thousands of years ago and had no impact by any other culture for those thousands of years. No changes to agriculture, infrastructure, architecture, building, modes of transport etc etc. Most places in the world by the 1700's had been touched by another civilization and adopted parts of their culture.

At the start of the first colony, they had a significant learning curve and it was extremely difficult for them to adapt to a modern civilization. Some still have challenges today.

If your going to try to be smart, at least understand the subject which you are going to debate, but then again your only interested in point scoring, not debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, QldVilla said:

I have a problem with the media in general because they don't report the facts, just what will get viewers or clicks.

I couldn't give you a timeline, we are a multi-cultural society and each of those cultures has their own psyche within the Australian experiment, its not a one size fits all.

But you can't judge Australians by your own standards, with an untrained ear, not knowing the context, history or their background. Many people around the world made simplistic assumptions, like yourself, based on the comments of Fraser Anning. That says more about the people who believed the media's narrative than being interested and understanding why and in which context the comments were made. His comment was insensitive, not racist.

Just because someone speaks plainly and isn't politically correct, doesn't mean they are a racist.

I know when I hear racist comments, I used to travel frequently for work. One week in Darwin, the next in Alice Springs, Cairns, Adelaide etc etc. But its far less common than the narrative your projecting. 

 

Fair enough. I don’t agree re: Anning and never will. I’m not projecting any narrative. I’m just giving my opinion. It’s been, shall I say, interesting getting your thoughts on the subject. I will still believe that Australia has a problem with racism. Do I think it is as bad as it once was? No. Do I think it’s getting worse or better at the moment? I’m not so sure. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
15 hours ago, QldVilla said:

They would because you have to understand the history of the aboriginal people, which clearly you don't.

They migrated into Australia thousands of years ago and had no impact by any other culture for those thousands of years. No changes to agriculture, infrastructure, architecture, building, modes of transport etc etc. Most places in the world by the 1700's had been touched by another civilization and adopted parts of their culture.

At the start of the first colony, they had a significant learning curve and it was extremely difficult for them to adapt to a modern civilization. Some still have challenges today.

If your going to try to be smart, at least understand the subject which you are going to debate, but then again your only interested in point scoring, not debate.

at the start of this thread, I said that the subject of racism is extremely complex....you are now touching on just some of those complexities.

Racism, could be another War and Peace, so its difficult to debate....Too many opinions and interpretations muddy the waters and politics gets dragged in too.

Its good to debate, but not worth getting too upset about, because folk far more intellectual than us struggle with it.

all you can really do, is live your life, having respect for your neighbour, irrespective of their colour, creed or politics.....we are all gods people.

what others do, is up to them, but we can avoid them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Keyblade said:

E7F5i3xWEAAoe6O?format=jpg&name=large

What's the point of this?

 

 

 

I may be giving them a bit too much credit here, but I think that this is more tone deaf rather than malicious. 

The puppets are exaggerations (Kane’s and Southgate’s are fairly grotesque having just looked at them), but the creators might, or rather, should have reconsidered using Rashord at all, or at the very least redesigned the puppet because they must know it will draw criticism if they don’t do a “fair” job caricaturing Rashford or any prominent black/non white individual.

 

Edit - and that consideration should have been underlined and bolded following the recent online abuse. 

Edited by Mark Albrighton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter
1 hour ago, Keyblade said:

E7F5i3xWEAAoe6O?format=jpg&name=large

What's the point of this?

 

 

 

Spitting Image does caricatures of public figures. Thats a kind take for their usual standards

 

PRI_160201082-e1601653979344.jpg

?m=02&d=20201002&t=2&i=1535962059&w=780&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Spitting Image does caricatures of public figures. Thats a kind take for their usual standards

 

PRI_160201082-e1601653979344.jpg

?m=02&d=20201002&t=2&i=1535962059&w=780&

I'm familiar with Spitting Images but those look like obvious caricatures of their features and demeanour. I just don't see the caricature in Rashford's image. For one, you're supposed to be able to tell at a glance who is being caricatured, but without that image of him next to it, I'd have never been able to tell that was supposed to be him. 

Like that scowl for example is basically the complete opposite of his character. Then on top of that they gave him stereotypical features that he doesn't even have to begin with. Looks like what a cartoonist would come up with in the 90's if you asked them to depict "black thug".

It just seems like adding to the pile-on because the lad missed a penalty. Used to think they punched up at powerful people and politicians, not 24 year old footballers going through a particularly rough time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â