• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Status
Not open for further replies.

fbm

Blue tinted optimist⭐
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
10,025
Location
Cloud cuckoo land
Earlier in the season at the Hall (can't remember which game) there were 2 coloured linesman who both were bald and who both had chequered flags.  Consequently, in my review of the match, I made a comment about an appalling decision in each half by the linesman but said that I couldn't tell whether it was the same lino or not because they were both black, bald and had the same flag.

Surprisingly, a couple of people picked up on this comment and said they "didn't know where I was going with it".  I wasn't going anywhere - I used the word "black" merely as a description.  Because they were, in fact, black.

Have we really all become so PC these days that the mere mention of the word "black" in a sentence constitutes some sort of racism?

Consider the following.

Black people are descendants of those who were originally born outside these shores and their skin colour is so as to protect them from the more powerful rays of the sun in those parts of the world.

The above sentence is purely factual and something similar could be found in many junior school text books or encyclopaedias.  

Now, people born WITHIN these shores have no need for such pigmented skin as the sun rarely shines that much.  Consequently, we tend to be fair skinned (forget half-caste and mixed race for the moment, as they aren't relevant to my point).

When we want to fire some abuse at people who live elsewhere in the UK and who possess the same skin colour but who nonetheless have a different lifestyle or culture, then we will normally come out with something like -

"You Welsh sheep-shagger",
"You Irish bomb-happy tw&t" or
"You Scottish kilt-wearing pansy".  

Please note that I am not suggesting that people from Wales, Ireland or Scotland fall into this bracket - it is just illustrative of things that some might say.  Stick with me.

If any of you were to stand face to face with a person from one of these places and hurl the appropriate verbal insult then there would be a very good chance of a brawl ensuing.  Now, consider what the result would be if the words "Welsh", "Irish" and "Scottish" were omitted from the said insults?  Would the result be any different?  

I doubt it.  I would think that Hamish MacDougall and his clan may be just as wound up at being called kilt-wearing pansies.  If they were actually wearing kilts, they would probably even react in the same way at being called pansies.  

So what exactly is the insult here?  After all, the people concerned are Scottish, Welsh, Irish, whatever... so would those words be merely descriptive?  I would suggest yes.  The insult comes with the other part - after all, to call anyone of any race or description a sheep-shagger, bomb happy tw&t or kilt-wearing pansy is something guaranteed to raise the blood pressure and probably the fists.

So, when we refer to the Bradford fans as "Northern Scum" we, I guess, would generate the same reaction as if we just called them "Scum".  Similarly, if they called us "Southern Chavs" they, again, would cause the same effect by just calling us "Chavs".

We both would take exception at the insult and not the descriptive term, as we are Southern and they are Northern.

I don't recall either set of fans whingeing about any "placeist" remarks.

Now, why is it that the word "black" generally makes people think of racism?

To me, a racist remark would be something like "You dirty monkey-loving ******" followed by a series of ape-like noises.  Such a remark, or anything remotely like it, would be totally unacceptable and fully deserving of all the anti-racism remedies available.  Lets analyse the sentence -

"Dirty" - used in this context to mean the colour of the skin being akin to filth rather than skin pigment.  Not a very nice thing to say at all and casts a personal slant on hygiene.

"Monkey-Loving" - A reference to the similarity in colour to our primate cousins and again, highly offensive to coloured people.

"******" - An unacceptable slang term for Negro, which again is offensive to all coloured people, mainly because it is rarely used in any sort of endearing fashion and only normally to insult.

The Monkey noises are again references to Primates and I am pleased to say have been absent from UK grounds (generally) for many years, as has the throwing of bananas at coloured players.

Now I very much doubt that anyone in Roots Hall would have uttered such racism towards Ricketts or any other player.  If so, our own coloured clan would no doubt have something to say.

But, in the heat of the moment, I consider it perfectly possible for at least one member of the South Upper or Lower, whilst in the throes of launching vitriolic and venomous abuse at Donovan Ricketts for whatever reason, to have uttered the words "You black *******".

Question - If that is what was in fact said (or something similar) is that a racist comment?

Using my above examples, the word "Black" can be argued as being purely descriptive because Ricketts is, indeed, black.  He seems to have not picked up on the word "*******" for one of two possible reasons;

1)  He wants to play the racism card as some sort of justification for his own actions, or
2)  He is, in fact, a ******* and therefore doesn't mind being described as such.

I find it sad that these days our society dictates that to merely call someone black constitutes racism.  Of course, to call someone a black ******* is not very nice but I consider it no more insulting than to call someone an old *******, a lanky *******, a northern ******* or even a fu.cking *******.

Why is it that the word "black" - the only truth in the statement - is the one that causes the grief?

If that is in fact what has happened then it is an insult to all those who suffer real racial abuse and inequality on a more dangerous and severe level.

Finally, not so much in Ricketts defence (and I wasn't there and can't comment on the incident itself), but having spoken to a couple of people who were in the South Upper, and playing Devils Advocate, I really don't think it is acceptable for any player to receive the sort of (non-racial) abuse that it appeared was dished out on Saturday last.  

Banter is one thing - abuse is another.  If it continues, then I am sure players will react again.  Seeing this as a good way of reducing the other side to 10 men, the abuse will increase, and no doubt after a barrage of complaints the FA will investigate and our club will tarnish its reputation considerably.  That will do none of us any good at all.
 
Some fair points there but I would say that [up to his retaliation] the abuse hurled at Ricketts was no more severe or intense than what a lot of players have been subjected to at the Hall. In this season alone I'd say Pawel Abbott and Lee Trundle (just 2 that spring to mind) received more stick than Ricketts did up to the point that he gesticulated to the South Upper (everything after that - barring the alleged racist abuse - he brought upon himself IMO). It's part and parcel of the game - players need to stay above it and not react however hard that might be. Of course it's easier for strikers (and, in particular, Eric Cantona!) to hit back at the abuse with their feet but there you go.
 
If Ricketts did'nt play-act to fool the Ref into giving him an free kick for the foul which did'nt happen, he would't got all that stick (where I stand, THERE IS NO RACISM .... so there!).
 
FBM, I get your point, but I tend to disagree. It's all down to interpretation, from the listener's point of view. If, as a listener, I was called "white boy" for example, providing there was real venom behind the white, I would construe that as racist. The same goes for "gay", I suppose, even if it is, as you say, a fact.

Racism is a two-way thing, it has to be meant and intepreted as such. I think the actual language used is largely irrelevant.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Napster @ Dec. 15 2005,14:01)]FBM, I get your point, but I tend to disagree. It's all down to interpretation, from the listener's point of view. If, as a listener, I was called "white boy" for example, providing there was real venom behind the white, I would construe that as racist. The same goes for "gay", I suppose, even if it is, as you say, a fact.

Racism is a two-way thing, it has to be meant and intepreted as such. I think the actual language used is largely irrelevant.
Hip-hop culture - where the 'N' word is used with alarming frequency these days - supports your argument Napster.
 
I think the difference in opinion is down to the "fact"
One person may say its not insulting, another may say that as it is obvious , there is no other reason for it to be used in a derogatory phrase than to add insult.

As for the original , statement "I couldn't tell whether it was the same lino or not because they were both black, bald and had the same flag" its a difficult call but I feel that if the colour of the linesman had not been an issue, the Phrase " I couldn't tell whether it was the same lino or not because they both looked alike and had the same flag" would probably have been the first thing to be thought of.

The intrisic element of racism is that the race differences in people are one of the first things people consider about when thinking about them as opposed to anything else about them.

That said, I think that generally if it is an insulting situation almost anyone will pick on a characteristic of the individual they intend to insult in an attempt to "hammer home" their point Hence "ginger t%$&*r" as opposed to "t%$&*r" , "Fat t**t" as opposed to "t**t" etc etc
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Napster @ Dec. 15 2005,14:01)]FBM, I get your point, but I tend to disagree. It's all down to interpretation, from the listener's point of view. If, as a listener, I was called "white boy" for example, providing there was real venom behind the white, I would construe that as racist. The same goes for "gay", I suppose, even if it is, as you say, a fact.

Racism is a two-way thing, it has to be meant and intepreted as such. I think the actual language used is largely irrelevant.
I would just call it insulting rather than racist.

For me, racism is about some sort of discrimination or abuse BECAUSE of the colour of the skin.

In what way has he been subjected to racism? Ricketts would have the abuse regardless of whether he was black or white.  He has just received abuse.  Would it be racist if he was called "a coloured *******"?  Or a "Jamaican *******"?

Monkey chants would not have been given to him if he was white.  That is racist.

I know what you mean Naps and I also know that our society dictates otherwise.  I just can't see why someone would get more worked up at being called "black" rather than being called a "*******".  If that's what happened, of course.  We don't know what is alleged to have been said, do we?  Despite hearing it the content never seems to have been disclosed.
 
To put it on here would be racist but it is a nine word sentence and probably sub judice. You would not need to be a specialist lip reader to understand that was allegedly said.

If it had been shouted loud enough to carry through the din to Ricketts, everyone would have heard it!

Hopefully after everything has died down and the case against the accused not proven, the content of the sentence may be revealed.  
smile.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:17)]As for the original , statement "I couldn't tell whether it was the same lino or not because they were both black, bald and had the same flag" its a difficult call but I feel that if the colour of the linesman had not been an issue, the Phrase " I couldn't tell whether it was the same lino or not because they both looked alike and had the same flag" would probably have been the first thing to be thought of.
That's my exact point, Firestorm.

Why is it a difficult call?

I was not seeking to criticise either lino because they were black... I was merely saying they were almost indistinguishable from my vantage point at the back of the RBS.

Why must I, or anyone else, pussy foot around the fact that black people are black by avoiding the word completely?

Doesn't anyone else feel that this is just a bit ridiculous?  Anyone who knows me will be well aware that I have no racial prejudices in any way, shape or form.  But for Gods sake, be insulted about the things that are intended to insult.

And yes, I agree that the characteristic is what is picked up on as the primary descriptive term.  But the words "You fat *******" are chanted at every ground in the country with no comeback.

Incidentally, if Thierry Henry was called a French *******, is that racist?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:17)]That said, I think that generally if it is an insulting situation almost anyone will pick on a characteristic of the individual they intend to insult in an attempt to "hammer home" their point Hence "ginger t%$&*r" as opposed to "t%$&*r" , "Fat t**t" as opposed to "t**t"   etc etc
again, it's down to intepretation and two-way thinking. Mates might well call each other "Fat t****r" and so on, and the listener wouldn't take offence, as it's in jest.

Language is 90% pragmatics, 10% semantics. Body language, non-verbal gestures, tone of speech, timing, convey way more information than the facts conveyed by the actual word used...

Give you an example - "it's cold in here" - in one instance - that could be a request for someone to close the window, in another instance it could be a demand for the heating contractor to sort it out. Different situations, same words, different meaning.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Napster @ Dec. 15 2005,14:30)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:17)]That said, I think that generally if it is an insulting situation almost anyone will pick on a characteristic of the individual they intend to insult in an attempt to "hammer home" their point Hence "ginger t%$&*r" as opposed to "t%$&*r" , "Fat t**t" as opposed to "t**t"   etc etc
again, it's down to intepretation and two-way thinking. Mates might well call each other "Fat t****r" and so on, and the listener wouldn't take offence, as it's in jest.

Language is 90% pragmatics, 10% semantics. Body language, non-verbal gestures, tone of speech, timing, convey way more information than the facts conveyed by the actual word used...

Give you an example - "it's cold in here" - in one instance - that could be a request for someone to close the window, in another instance it could be a demand for the heating contractor to sort it out. Different situations, same words, different meaning.
Agreed.

But when abuse is being dished out, it cannot be construed any way other than to be totally insulting. It is intended to hurt, aggrieve, wind up, whatever. It is clearly not a joke, nor sarcasm, so the other connotations don't even get off the blocks.

So why, by adding the word black, does an insult become a racist insult?

Has the recipent suffered any additional damage or grief because of that word?

I don't think so.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (fbm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:21)] I just can't see why someone would get more worked up at being called "black" rather than being called a "*******".
Because for the same reason Pakistanis don't like being called Pakis. If the racism isn't intended, then there is no point to qualify it with "black". So, to focus on one quality, why does it have to be the skin colour? We could argue also about Smith and Campbell-Ryce, both short, both have black skin. But the more astute watcher discerns the difference in their other physical attributes, like JCR dithering on the ball near the corner flag...

A person being black and being called black, focuses the attention on the skin colour, which is what is at issue. Yes, if I was called "white b***ard* I would be offended. The same if an Indian was called "Indian b***ard".

That is intepreted as racist, as people don't like the inference that because of the colour of the skin, nothing they can alter, they're different than anyone else of a different, more standard colour. And that is the very core of racism, that skin colour makes a difference.

It's a fascinating argument, though.

Personally, me and a mate worked out a scale of non-racist insults. A level one would be "to**er", level two "wan***" and so on, up to level five "c***". Generally, people are more offended the further you move up the scale. Everyone seems offended by a level 5, but hardly one by a level one.

Still. I digress.

smile.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (fbm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:30)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:17)]As for the original , statement "I couldn't tell whether it was the same lino or not because they were both black, bald and had the same flag" its a difficult call but I feel that if the colour of the linesman had not been an issue, the Phrase " I couldn't tell whether it was the same lino or not because they both looked alike and had the same flag" would probably have been the first thing to be thought of.
That's my exact point, Firestorm.

Why is it a difficult call?

I was not seeking to criticise either lino because they were black... I was merely saying they were almost indistinguishable from my vantage point at the back of the RBS.

Why must I, or anyone else, pussy foot around the fact that black people are black by avoiding the word completely?

Doesn't anyone else feel that this is just a bit ridiculous?  Anyone who knows me will be well aware that I have no racial prejudices in any way, shape or form.  But for Gods sake, be insulted about the things that are intended to insult.

And yes, I agree that the characteristic is what is picked up on as the primary descriptive term.  But the words "You fat *******" are chanted at every ground in the country with no comeback.

Incidentally, if Thierry Henry was called a French *******, is that racist?
>>its a difficult call but I feel that if the colour of the linesman had not been an issue, <<

I said it was a diificult call because I felt that it would be hard to explain what I was getting at, If the colour of the linesman had no bearing on your statement, why raise the issue.

Thierry Henry comment yes its racist, it a comment about his race....

>>Why must I, or anyone else, pussy foot around the fact that black people are black by avoiding the word completely?<<

Why must anyone mention the fact that they are black at all....it is not doing anyone any harm, it makes absolutely no difference to anything (except if you are being asked to describe someone then it is of relevance). It the statement about the linesman there was no reason to raise their colour. Had the linesmen been Duncan Goodhew Look alikes, Would you in all honesty have said ""I couldn't tell whether it was the same lino or not because they were both white, bald and had the same flag" If not then obviously the colour of the skin is an issue.

See I said it was a difficult call
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (fbm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:38)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Napster @ Dec. 15 2005,14:30)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:17)]That said, I think that generally if it is an insulting situation almost anyone will pick on a characteristic of the individual they intend to insult in an attempt to "hammer home" their point Hence "ginger t%$&*r" as opposed to "t%$&*r" , "Fat t**t" as opposed to "t**t"   etc etc
again, it's down to intepretation and two-way thinking. Mates might well call each other "Fat t****r" and so on, and the listener wouldn't take offence, as it's in jest.

Language is 90% pragmatics, 10% semantics. Body language, non-verbal gestures, tone of speech, timing, convey way more information than the facts conveyed by the actual word used...

Give you an example - "it's cold in here" - in one instance - that could be a request for someone to close the window, in another instance it could be a demand for the heating contractor to sort it out. Different situations, same words, different meaning.
Agreed.

But when abuse is being dished out, it cannot be construed any way other than to be totally insulting.  It is intended to hurt, aggrieve, wind up, whatever.  It is clearly not a joke, nor sarcasm, so the other connotations don't even get off the blocks.

So why, by adding the word black, does an insult become a racist insult?

Has the recipent suffered any additional damage or grief because of that word?

I don't think so.
it comes down in the end to how do you measure "additional grief".

We're lucky in that we are seeing things from a culture which is predominantly white-skinned, and that we are white-skinned ourselves. Who's to say that one person would get offended more than another because of a certain situation?

One form of language is the idiolect - a variety of a language unique to an individual. It is manifested by patterns of word selection and grammar, or words, phrases or idioms that are unique to that individual. Every individual has an idiolect; the grouping of words and phrases is unique, rather than an individual using specific words that nobody else uses. An idiolect can easily evolve into an ecolect—a dialect variant specific to a household.

Now, the flip side is, every person has a variant, of which I don't know the term, where they intepret everything according to their experiences, knowledge-systems and so forth.

Therefore, in the grander scheme of things, it depends. It depends on the person making the insult, the person receiving the insult, the situation, the intended meaning, the perceived meaning, the time, the place and so on and so on.

It is possible that the recipient suffered no futher damage, but it is ultimately impossible to tell!


smile.gif
 
ginger people cop stick everywhere.. especially on t.v. some of it can be pretty nasty... its an obvious thing having ginger hair and the first thing you notice physically, much like when you see a black person the first thing you notice is that they have dark skin....
though this is of course highly amusing as opposed to offensive...
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (CANV @ Dec. 15 2005,15:02)]ginger people cop stick everywhere..  especially on t.v.   some of it can be pretty nasty...  its an obvious thing having ginger hair and the first thing you notice physically, much like when you see a black person the first thing you notice is that they have dark skin....  
though this is of course highly amusing as opposed to offensive...
Trust me, its not funny. My son is ginger and at times it has been very painful , especially as a young child, seeing the bullying etc.
 
It&#39;s the connotations of words like Black and ****, IMO.

Yes, they may have just been descriptive words to begin with, but have been used as insults for so long that even if they are used innocently, they are so loaded with other connotations that they ARE insulting whenever used.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (fbm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:21)]I just can't see why someone would get more worked up at being called "black" rather than being called a "*******".
Because anyone can be a "*******", but only a coloured person can be a "black *******".

That to me makes the phrase racist.

If you really feel the need to insult someone then call them a *******, at least that way you're just being rude!



FWIW I sit pretty much on the half way line in the West Stand, about 10 metres nearer to the North than the South stand, almost directly opposite the away dugout. I was therefore about the same distance away as Todd, and can say I heard absolutely nothing racist. I also had an audiogram last week as part of my CAA Class One medical, which I passed!  
tounge.gif
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Napster @ Dec. 15 2005,14:01)]The same goes for &quot;gay&quot;, I suppose, even if it is, as you say, a fact.
.
I wholeheartedly disagree.

I have no problem with homosexuality between consenting poofs or dykes, behind closed doors. I fundamentally object to it being &quot;rammed down my throat&quot; and that of my children, particulary on television, where it is regularly portrayed as normal and acceptable.

Now that we have allowed Civil Weddings what is next down the &quot;slippery slope&quot; to depravity in this society ? Paeadophilia ? What ? No way ? Turn back the clock 50 years and see what the public view was on homosexuality.

I know my views will upset the PC lot but show me where it exists in any other form of the animal kingdom or any long lost tibes.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ Dec. 15 2005,14:51)]Why must anyone mention the fact that they are black at all....it is not doing anyone any harm, it makes absolutely no difference to anything (except if you are being asked to describe someone then it is of relevance). It the statement about the linesman there was no reason to raise their colour. Had the linesmen been Duncan Goodhew Look alikes, Would you in all honesty have said ""I couldn't tell whether it was the same lino or not because they were both white, bald and had the same flag" If not then obviously the colour of the skin is an issue.

See I said it was a difficult call
I would have probably have said the linesmen "were both Duncan Goodhew lookalikes"

wink.gif


In a country where the natives are white, I think from a descriptive point of view it is taken as given that if you say someone has dark hair and glasses then the image conjured up is a white person with dark hair and glasses.  There is no further need to add the word white.

If we were describing events taking place in Jamaica, a phrase like "the shopkeeper was extremely tall and had glasses" conjures up an image of a tall Jamaican wearing glasses.

Therefore, the unusual is highlighted so as to aid the minds-eye of the person reading the passage.  Of course being black or white makes no difference as to an ability to do the job, but, as you say, it is relevant when issuing a description.

It is unusual to have coloured football officials, and even more so to have 2 running the lines at the same game.  If only one was black, then I would have said "the decisions made by the black linesman" which is certainly not racist.

Incidentally, I have several friends who are West Indian, Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi.  None of them are offended by being called black.  I think the problem lies with some white people who wrongly assume that they are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top