What makes you think you're not a racist?

[Ferretfancy]

scottycelt

Ahem ! Re Flanders and Swann, they WERE joking ( I think! )

[MrGongGong]

I do think the spoof of Flanders and Swann is , in many ways better than the original

like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cveZR4e91kU&feature=related

[John Skelton]

What a pompous, holier-than-thou article which seems to me much more intrinsically 'racist' than anything poor Blatter said ...

Sorry to be in some disagreement with you here, Ams ...

"Poor Blatter" is no doubt a target for the English press after the humiliation of England's World Cup bid: otherwise he recently got himself re-elected unopposed as FIFA President on the back of a corruption scandal in which the putative whistle-blowers were found to be not so much corrupt as corrupt if they stood against Blatter. Your kind of election, scotty!

English football (don't know about Scottish football ) for all its many faults has spent decades seeking to do something about a sport where, in the 70s and 80s, black footballers were met with 'monkey' noises from the terraces; where bananas were thrown on the pitch; where fascist groups recruited outside and inside the grounds; where traveling to an away game for a black supporter was to become an almost certain target. So, actually, Marina Hyde is right: English football has done well in this regard (there is still a problem with abusive chanting: and I don't mean football banter. But at least abusing someone because of the colour of their skin is dealt with). English football has done well in helping to move attitudes away from automatic hate, and in acknowledging a problem.

If Blatter doesn't know that racist abuse of players still happens in Eastern Europe, in Spain (in recent incidents) then he is very out of touch indeed. And if he doesn't know that dismissing it as heat of the moment banter on the pitch gives credence to it off the pitch then he lives in dreamland.

[scottycelt]

"Poor Blatter" is no doubt a target for the English press after the humiliation of England's World Cup bid: otherwise he recently got himself re-elected unopposed as FIFA President on the back of a corruption scandal in which the putative whistle-blowers were found to be not so much corrupt as corrupt if they stood against Blatter. Your kind of election, scotty!

English football (don't know about Scottish football ) for all its many faults has spent decades seeking to do something about a sport where, in the 70s and 80s, black footballers were met with 'monkey' noises from the terraces; where bananas were thrown on the pitch; where fascist groups recruited outside and inside the grounds; where traveling to an away game for a black supporter was to become an almost certain target. So, actually, Marina Hyde is right: English football has done well in this regard (there is still a problem with abusive chanting: and I don't mean football banter. But at least abusing someone because of the colour of their skin is dealt with). English football has done well in helping to move attitudes away from automatic hate, and in acknowledging a problem.

If Blatter doesn't know that racist abuse of players still happens in Eastern Europe, in Spain (in recent incidents) then he is very out of touch indeed. And if he doesn't know that dismissing it as heat of the moment banter on the pitch gives credence to it off the pitch then he lives in dreamland.

MY kind of election? I know nothing about the internal manoeuvrings within FIFA and I strongly suspect you really don't either, John!

That is not the issue. The issue is whether Herr Blatter was taking racism seriously when suggesting two players should shake hands after inappropriate racial banter on the field. They do after other sorts of silly verbal skirmishes. Many years ago, when i played football for a school X1 in Glasgow I was called many 'nice' things by opponents on the field ... 'ya wee papist **** ..' was probably one of the nicer ones.
Yet we all shook hands at the end of the game.

Why on earth shouln't it be the same over race? Blatter was not condoning racism, or even racial banter, he was simply suggesting that players should behave like grown-ups!

As John Barnes the black ex-Liverpool and England player said yesterday on television .. 'calling somebody on the field a black **** is little different from calling another a big-nosed ****'. Those sort of puerile exchanges must be distinguished from the true and abhorrent racism of the sort we witnessed in the old South Africa and still promoted by far-right parties elsewhere.

The English media fuss over Blatter's comment is ridiculous, and can only really be explained by the "sour grapes" mentioned previously.

[amateur51]

I do think the spoof of Flanders and Swann is , in many ways better than the original

like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cveZR...eature=related

[John Skelton]

boring post

[amateur51]

MY kind of election? I know nothing about the internal manoeuvrings within FIFA and I strongly suspect you really don't either, John!

That is not the issue. The issue is whether Herr Blatter was taking racism seriously when suggesting two players should shake hands after inappropriate racial banter on the field. They do after other sorts of silly verbal skirmishes. Many years ago, when i played football for a school X1 in Glasgow I was called many 'nice' things by opponents on the field ... 'ya wee papist **** ..' was probably one of the nicer ones.
Yet we all shook hands at the end of the game.

But it still rankles after all these years and you bring it up at every opportunity, scotty. And I can undersatand why you do, having been tormented for being gay by much the same lads at school. It isn't puerile, it isn't something to shake hands about - it's bullying and it happens because decent people allow it to happen. Blatter's lack of awareness is a disgrace to his position and he should take the hint and go!

[scottycelt]

There's left-wing/liberal tolerance for you ...

I am in very gay spirits this morning, amateur, I have to admit ... so watch out!

[amateur51]

There's left-wing/liberal tolerance for you ...

I am in very gay spirits this morning, amateur, I have to admit ... so watch out!

Oh my scotty ... is that a proposal?

[MrGongGong]

There's racism in football ?????

WHAT ?

No Sh*t Sherlock

what about that German guy in the Vatican ????
or the bears ? (not THOSE bears AM )

[amateur51]

There's racism in football ?????

WHAT ?

No Sh*t Sherlock

what about that German guy in the Vatican ????
or the bears ? (not THOSE bears AM )

[hackneyvi]

Are you saying that racism can be excused on the grounds of old age, french frank? Or are you saying it can be explained on the grounds of old age?

Reading this point, I am struck by the thought: does racism need to be 'excused' or 'explained'? The inference (I draw) from this is that racism is judged to be something more than opinion because if it were an opinion, the general idea that people are entitled to their views would cover and thereby allow it. But I don't recall ever hearing it propose that someone is entitled to be racist in their views.

I have a sense that racist views are therefore judged to be 'unspeakable'. What is singular about race that racist views are 'unspeakable'? It seems plausible to me that they are unspeakable because people don't trust themselves to be in the company of the words or ideas. It's as if the person is handling a bomb which may at any moment go up and blow off their fingers.

Diversity of views on sexuality seem still to be 'understood', 'excused', 'explained' on the grounds of age, gender, religion and culture. When does opinion overstep the mark to become bigotry and why is racial bigotry specifically reacted to with such intensity?

[hackneyvi]

All prejudices, no matter how seemingly ugly, surely have at their route a perceived survival value on a subconscious level?.

Looking at this point specifically, B, it seems to me plausible that some people see, feel, imagine themselves less and others see, feel, imagine themselves more in competition with or threatened by others. Since feeling is a principle driver of opinion, it will therefore seem true to them that a threat exists. I have yet to find a thought or feeling expressed by another human being which I could not say that I shared some shade of. For myself, this leads me to imagine that the 'unspeakable' is unspeakable because of its resonance.

[Serial_Apologist]

Reading this point, I am struck by the thought: does racism need to be 'excused' or 'explained'? The inference (I draw) from this is that racism is judged to be something more than opinion because if it were an opinion, the general idea that people are entitled to their views would cover and thereby allow it. But I don't recall ever hearing it propose that someone is entitled to be racist in their views.

I would have thought because racism is not just an attitude but consists also in the behaviour flowing from it. If I punch you on the nose, my action certainly would need explanation, even if it didn't deserve excusing; but it would most certainly amount to more than an opinion!

I have a sense that racist views are therefore judged to be 'unspeakable'. What is singular about race that racist views are 'unspeakable'? It seems plausible to me that they are unspeakable because people don't trust themselves to be in the company of the words or ideas. It's as if the person is handling a bomb which may at any moment go up and blow off their fingers.

Who? Which person? The one holding racist views?

Diversity of views on sexuality seem still to be 'understood', 'excused', 'explained' on the grounds of age, gender, religion and culture. When does opinion overstep the mark to become bigotry and why is racial bigotry specifically reacted to with such intensity?

"Bigot. n. one blindly and obstinately devoted to opinion or creed. Bigoted, a. Bigotry, n. blind zeal"

That Everyman's English Dictionary definition suffices I think. When indeed does a person and/or group become obstinate, and can they be dissuaded? The more they group themselves into a position of collective invulnerability, the more difficult it is to persuade them out of their bonded identity. Or bondaged. Isolated individuals are another matter. There was the next-door neighbour who loved Blues music but didn't like black people. How could he love the one but not like the other? Well because blacks were good for rhythm - and sport, he added - but not much good for anything else. That was a tougher one than the line everyone must have heard: "I don't like blacks. Joe? You mean Joe out on the Polishing section? He's all right - it's the rest of them I don't like". "How many others have you actually met or even spoken to?" Etc etc. When I worked in Bristol, I managed to persuade a work colleage out of his racism by pointing out that many Bristolians still hated the Welsh for scabbing on the General Strike by taking the jobs of local workers made redundant at lower rates of pay. He just happened to be Welsh, see. There's no knowing when or by what means a bigot may be dissuaded from his or her bigotted views. I did once think I had persuaded a fundamentalist Christian away from his fervent belief in the Biblical statement that "In the beginning was the Word" by tickling him all over, and then asking him, "If the word comes first, how come you are laughing?" Sometimes a good psychological shock is the remedy... always preferable to violence, at any rate. I have to admit, though, I was glad when the Asians in Southall started taking up arms against the National Front after the Blair Peach incident demonstration in 1977: previously their passivity had made them sitting ducks.

[Flosshilde]

Diversity of views on sexuality seem still to be 'understood', 'excused', 'explained' on the grounds of age, gender, religion and culture. When does opinion overstep the mark to become bigotry and why is racial bigotry specifically reacted to with such intensity?

Are they? by whom? not by me.

I think the 'intensity' with which racism is reacted to might possibly be because it's very difficult to hide the fact that one is of a different, minority, race, & therefore one can't avoid the bigotry directed at oneself. Sexuality, on the other hand, is hidden unless one chooses to reveal it (which heterosexuals do unconsciously) & therefore it is easy to avoid prejudice directed at oneself (although the generally expressed prejudice can still have an impact).

Another reason could be that racism has been recognised as undesirable for longer than prejudice against homosexuals has. There was a Race Relations act passed in 1965 (the result of the Notting Hill riots?), some 2 years before any sort of sexual relations between men was legalised. It's taken a very long time to get to where we are with ant-racism; disapproval of anti-gay discrimination has happened rather faster.