Racism Part two

[lapal_fan]

Just now, Keyblade said:

I mean, it's definitely not a kind thing to do and is usually done with the intent to insult. But at least it's targeted and you don't have strays hitting uninvolved people.

Like with @Stevo985's story about the guy who called a black guy "one of the good ones". He wasn't even insulting the guy, but yet somehow managed to insult every black person even though only 1 guy was the subject of that conversation.

ahh shit.  Apologies, I get it now. 

Wasn't sure what you were referencing. 

I've only half an eye on the topic, but I'm interested in learning at the same time.  Great mix! Anyway, back to slappin' @Seat68 for being a man sized tit and bacon etc.  

Hey... you could say "you're one of the good ones".. But we won't.

[sne]

The Washington Redskins are once again rumored to change their name and logo. Looks like it might actually happen this time but who knows.

In Sweden we have a ice hockey team that for whatever reason are names Frölunda Indians (there was a silly fad in the mid 90's when all clubs adopted a NHL style name like Tigers, Wolves or Indians)

Apparently they are not thinking about changing it. Not atm anyway.

[tonyh29]

have a like for using  a picture with the word Villa on it

[mjmooney]

I'm surprised there isn't a U.S. sports team called the Maine Coons (it's a breed of cat). 

[sne]

12 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I'm surprised there isn't a U.S. sports team called the Maine Coons (it's a breed of cat). 

A quick google says that there used to be a team called the the Frisco Fighting Coons, but they changed to Fighting Raccoons a few years back.

There was also a team called the Cochella Arabs who had a pretty questionable mascot  

 

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, sne said:

The Washington Redskins are once again rumored to change their name and logo. Looks like it might actually happen this time but who knows.

Obviously the Washington bit needs to go too. Y'know, slaves etc. 

I suggest The Shenandoah Powhatans. All sorted. 

[HanoiVillan]

Some useful context on the Washington Racistnames:

'This Washington football team was named by one of the most vehement racists in the history of American professional sports. When George Marshall bought the team in 1932, they were called the Boston Braves. He changed the name -- to a slur, because he was a racist -- and moved them to Washington. He made "Dixie" one of the team's fight songs and refused to hire black players well into the 1960s. The NFL integrated in 1946 but Marshall's team held out until the federal government actually forced them to field black players in 1963. The all-white Washington teams of the 1950s and 1960s were among the worst in the league, but segregation was more important to Marshall than winning football games. The NFL had actually already been racially integrated until black players were suddenly banned in 1933. Interviews with owners suggest that Marshall was responsible for the ban.

This is the man who named the team and white supremacy and racism obviously informed his every decision. In his will he insisted that his foundation not spend any money on "any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form." It is extremely hard to believe that this man selected the name -- specially changed the name from a less offensive term for American Indians to this term -- to "honor" anyone, the usual argument used by the team's modern defenders.'

from: https://www.salon.com/control/2013/06/12/frank_luntz_hired_by_washington_football_team_to_convince_people_name_isnt_horribly_racist/

[Keyblade]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Some useful context on the Washington Racistnames:

'This Washington football team was named by one of the most vehement racists in the history of American professional sports. When George Marshall bought the team in 1932, they were called the Boston Braves. He changed the name -- to a slur, because he was a racist -- and moved them to Washington. He made "Dixie" one of the team's fight songs and refused to hire black players well into the 1960s. The NFL integrated in 1946 but Marshall's team held out until the federal government actually forced them to field black players in 1963. The all-white Washington teams of the 1950s and 1960s were among the worst in the league, but segregation was more important to Marshall than winning football games. The NFL had actually already been racially integrated until black players were suddenly banned in 1933. Interviews with owners suggest that Marshall was responsible for the ban.

This is the man who named the team and white supremacy and racism obviously informed his every decision. In his will he insisted that his foundation not spend any money on "any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form." It is extremely hard to believe that this man selected the name -- specially changed the name from a less offensive term for American Indians to this term -- to "honor" anyone, the usual argument used by the team's modern defenders.'

from: https://www.salon.com/control/2013/06/12/frank_luntz_hired_by_washington_football_team_to_convince_people_name_isnt_horribly_racist/

That is pretty damning, not to mention shocking that it hasn't been changed well into the 21st century.

[mjmooney]

3 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

That is pretty damning, not to mention shocking that it hasn't been changed well into the 21st century.

It's not like American sport has much respect for tradition or fans' feelings anyway, what with the cavalier way they buy and sell franchises, move teams to other cities, etc. 

[HanoiVillan]

18 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

That is pretty damning, not to mention shocking that it hasn't been changed well into the 21st century.

As the NY books link notes, the confusingly-named Miami University of Ohio had the same racist name but dropped it in 1997. In 1996, a lawsuit began to force Washington to change the name, but for commercial reasons - all that merch! - they held out in a protracted legal process, until the courts ruled against the plaintiffs in 2009.

They are going to have to change the name sooner or later, because there is no plausible good reason to have what is universally acknowledged as a racist slur for a team name. But the current owner has spent the last decade fighting a rearguard action against public opinion. He should cut his losses, and apologise for fighting for the name.

EDIT: I shouldn't have said 'universally acknowledged', because it isn't. A lot of people disagree, clearly. But dictionaries are clear that it is a slur:

'a contemptuous term used to refer to a North American Indian.' https://www.dictionary.com/browse/redskin?s=t

'an old-fashioned informal name, now highly offensive, for a Native American' https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/redskin

'[dated, offensive term for] A North American Indian' https://www.lexico.com/definition/redskin

etc.

Edited July 3, 2020 by HanoiVillan

[Vive_La_Villa]

On 02/07/2020 at 13:58, Stevo985 said:

Another good example I've thought of. One of my best mates is Chinese and his dad owns a couple of Chinese restaurants that he also works in, and my friend has worked in too.

He said they'd often have people come in and use the word "Chinky". Either to order "chinky chips", or just in general "Oh yeah we love coming for a chinky"

 

Now the vast majority of cases the person doing it hasn't realised it's an offesive word to use. They're not saying it maliciously (as opposed to if they were saying something like "you chinky word removed" when it's obviously deliberate), and don't realise they're being inappropriate.

He said half the time they'd politely ask someone to not use that word the person would be horrified that they'd been offensive and apologetic and generally just realise they've done something wrong.
But the other half people would just laugh at them, or tell them it's actually not offensive and basically refuse to see anything wrong.

 

That's a better judge of a person than the actual use of the word.

(this would also be a good example of what I meant in reply to @lapal_fan when I said using racial stereotypes is different than actually being a racist)

Reminds me of school days being as I was pretty much the only ‘brown’ kid. Sometimes in conversation the local shop would casually be call the ‘p**i shop’. No malice involved it’s just what everyone in the area called it. Not for a second would they think they were being racist. But then they realised I was standing there. Awkward looks all around.

It was hard being the only brown kid in school. Eventually made me quite racist if I’m being honest.

[tinker]

When anyone is different to the norm then names and labels will be dished out, fatty , speccie, baldy the list goes on and on. In a large majority of cases i suspect its ignorance rather than racism thats got a lot to do with name calling, although human nature does a liking for bullying and general nastiness.

The real issues start with institutionalised racism which is clearly a problem in the UK and needs to be addressed.

We shouldn't forget there is also a very strong.  class system in the UK that stops progression for everyone who's from the lower classes whether they are brown , black, Chinese or white.  Ex Eton school boys in government as MDs , high police ranks, armed forces the BBC the list goes on and on and its not just Eton either .Take the BBC,  its full of upper and middle class workers , presenters who are there because there Daddy was . I cant bring myself to watch these old white middle class people who have nothing in common with 95% of their paying customers.

The debate needs to be widened even if its  uncomfortable  to the ruling  classes.

[sharkyvilla]

15 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Some useful context on the Washington Racistnames:

'This Washington football team was named by one of the most vehement racists in the history of American professional sports. When George Marshall bought the team in 1932, they were called the Boston Braves. He changed the name -- to a slur, because he was a racist -- and moved them to Washington. He made "Dixie" one of the team's fight songs and refused to hire black players well into the 1960s. The NFL integrated in 1946 but Marshall's team held out until the federal government actually forced them to field black players in 1963. The all-white Washington teams of the 1950s and 1960s were among the worst in the league, but segregation was more important to Marshall than winning football games. The NFL had actually already been racially integrated until black players were suddenly banned in 1933. Interviews with owners suggest that Marshall was responsible for the ban.

This is the man who named the team and white supremacy and racism obviously informed his every decision. In his will he insisted that his foundation not spend any money on "any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form." It is extremely hard to believe that this man selected the name -- specially changed the name from a less offensive term for American Indians to this term -- to "honor" anyone, the usual argument used by the team's modern defenders.'

from: https://www.salon.com/control/2013/06/12/frank_luntz_hired_by_washington_football_team_to_convince_people_name_isnt_horribly_racist/

I've read about that before, it's horrible stuff.  I don't get why if a white supremacist is owner of a football team he then names it after a group of people he finds inferior?  But then trying to find logic in racism is pointless.

[cyrusr]

35 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

I've read about that before, it's horrible stuff.  I don't get why if a white supremacist is owner of a football team he then names it after a group of people he finds inferior?  But then trying to find logic in racism is pointless.

Maybe that he was trying to normalise a racist word so everybody used it? In any event, knowing the background of why, somewhat suggests that they need to change the name...

[Graham t]

On 04/07/2020 at 09:32, tinker said:

When anyone is different to the norm then names and labels will be dished out, fatty , speccie, baldy the list goes on and on. In a large majority of cases i suspect its ignorance rather than racism thats got a lot to do with name calling, although human nature does a liking for bullying and general nastiness.

The real issues start with institutionalised racism which is clearly a problem in the UK and needs to be addressed.

We shouldn't forget there is also a very strong.  class system in the UK that stops progression for everyone who's from the lower classes whether they are brown , black, Chinese or white.  Ex Eton school boys in government as MDs , high police ranks, armed forces the BBC the list goes on and on and its not just Eton either .Take the BBC,  its full of upper and middle class workers , presenters who are there because there Daddy was . I cant bring myself to watch these old white middle class people who have nothing in common with 95% of their paying customers.

The debate needs to be widened even if its  uncomfortable  to the ruling  classes.

Hi ,

Yes there is racism in the U.K., no doubt about it. But it can be overcome, just ask £36 million a year Lewis Hamilton for example.....On formula one....Nigel Mansell believed that he was not taken seriously because of his 'brummie' accent but he had talent and determination and fought his way to the top. If a Brummie can make it anybody can........

 

(The last sentence was a joke by the way.........).

VLD.

[bickster]

29 minutes ago, Graham t said:

Hi ,

Yes there is racism in the U.K., no doubt about it. But it can be overcome, just ask £36 million a year Lewis Hamilton for example.....On formula one....Nigel Mansell believed that he was not taken seriously because of his 'brummie' accent but he had talent and determination and fought his way to the top. If a Brummie can make it anybody can........

 

(The last sentence was a joke by the way.........).

VLD.

So was the whole post

[mjmooney]

There was a very good interview with John Barnes (talking about his experience of racism) on R4's 'Saturday Live' yesterday morning. Probably still available on BBC Sounds. 

[Follyfoot]

8 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

There was a very good interview with John Barnes (talking about his experience of racism) on R4's 'Saturday Live' yesterday morning. Probably still available on BBC Sounds. 

Did he not turn up at his first Liverpool Christmas party in a KKK outfit?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Graham t said:

Yes there is racism in the U.K., no doubt about it. But it can be overcome

It shouldn't have to be "overcome". Some people manage to prosper financially, or career wise despite racism, sure. But being rich or having a good job doesn't "overcome" racism. The racism is still there, the attitudes are still there. Wealth or success might diminish the prejudice directly faced by an individual, but it doesn't change the minds of the racists and in some cases it makes them even more strident in their views or more self denying about their racism.

[Graham t]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

So was the whole post

Why? And please don't say ' well if you don't know'!!!!! Elucidate......

REGARDS,

VLD.