how do you then feel about ethnic minorities stereotyping anglos? assuming they wouldnt be as studious, as hard working?
how do you feel about the simple movie ‘bend it like beckham’? with the idian family openly hostile to homosexuality and fraternising with anglos?
ive seen you mention before elsewhere about the historical ‘leg up’ and of course thats totally relevant…but ignore that for a moment, ignore all of the external noise for a moment and isolate the example i give you (and that movie isnt out on its own) do you feel uncomfortable with the ease at which that form of racial exclusivity is so readily accepted ?
apart from being ridiculously unfunny, i get really uncomfortable with the whole one way street of it.
my big fat greek wedding, bend it like beckham, it goes on and on and on…
What I don’t like about the symbolism of taking the knee aligns with Wilfried Zaha’s position. It’s performative. How do you then bring it to an end? Do you keep doing it for as long as there’s racial discrimination? How do you assess whether it has been eradicated and to what degree is that to be determined?
Racial injustice is a very important issue to highlight but there are others as well. What focus should athletes bring to homophobia, transphobia, poverty, climate change, wildlife, education, enfranchisement, forced migrant labour etc, etc?
I respect everyone’s right to peaceful protest I just wonder about the effectiveness of taking the knee and the problematic messaging if/when that no longer happens. I much prefer the boycotting of social media etc. Tangible steps that help to ally fanbases such that they begin to more actively police themselves, call out unacceptable behaviour in others, stigmatise bigotry, make those who hold such views social pariahs, take away their attention, ridicule them…that’s ultimately how societal change will be brought about.
Gestures such as taking the knee simply allow bigots to hide behind the excuse of attacking a message they can, legitimately or not, impugn as political. The problem now is that it has, therefore, become difficult to stop doing because those who disingenuously attack it will claim vindication.
On an even playing field I don’t really like it, and it really depends on the context.
Ethnic minorities people assuming white people aren’t hard working (is this actually A Thing?) is to me a clear case of discrimination if that cropped up in an employment context. I suffered something similar once - not about hard working, but about religion. I worked in Hackney for a company deeply rooted in evangelical Christianity, as a lot of black communities in London are. The manager found out I was not religious and bullied me for three years, including refusing to let me be responsible for cash because he couldn’t accept an atheist could be moral. Fucking outrageous. We ended up at employment tribunal, which he ended up settling on the day.
In Bend it like beckham I don’t think the Asian families homophobia and reluctance to allow the woman to be friends with the white woman was presented as a good thing was it? It’s a while since I saw the film, but I’m sure the audience sympathy was not intended to be with the family?
I do think we have to be aware that there is an element here around the direction we kick. Like the the Indian Family going for ‘an English’ in Goodness Gracious Me, you could see it as racism if you are especially sensitive, but it feels a lot more like a minority group poking fun at a much more powerful majority, and themselves in the process.
Or maybe they could do a minutes facepalm for all the condescending assholes who believe that they know better than everyone else, when they have never experienced a moment of racism in their lives and can provide not a shred of evidence that UBT training is of any practical use whatsoever.
In light of the Christian Erikson incident, recognition of the scourge of heart disease by his fellow professionals would probably raise enormous awareness of something that can have a real, immediate, and demonstrable impact. It would actually save lives - sorry that does not conform to your political agenda.
And as John Barnes recently said (a man who has also experienced racism first hand) - in his opinion taking the knee is tokenism - as he says for 20 years there has been a kick racism out of football campaign and you tell me how fucking effective has that been?. But I guess John Barnes does not know what he is talking about either - being just a black footballer.
If footballers want to use the Christian Erikssen situation to raise awareness of heart disease, then good on them. I’d fully support that.
They want to make a stand against racist abuse at football games. I fully support that too. I wonder why you have a problem with this?
Saying they shouldn’t take a stand against racism because they should take a stand on something entirely different is, to be frank, fucking stupid. It’s a complete non-argument.
What happens when they decide to replace the knee with a hand on heart gesture? Do people criticise them and say they should be raising awareness of AIDS instead. And then when they do this does they get criticised and told they should focus on cancer? And then that they should focus on road deaths.
Of course, that wouldn’t happen because it seems to only be when the stance is against racism it’s met by a tirade of whataboutism.
By the way, yesterday I was called out for jumping to conclusions on the Eriksen situation, with justification. I think the same probably applies here.
Taking the knee, as the England team do, is a positive message to send out and though at first I was unsure and then was greatly dismayed by the boos, ironically, I think it (taking the knee) is made more powerful and justified by the booing. It shines a light on the world stage, that in a apparent 1st world enlightened society, this sort of mentality is not too far below the surface - just like everywhere else I will add.
As stated, personally, I’m not sure they should have started to take the knee because I’m conflicted on a number of levels:
Is it is their job to do so?
Should/Can the FA allow it?
As the conversation is now about should they be doing it or not, is it detracting from the government’s and society’s role in why this is a “thing”?
Though conflicted, I now think there are positives in the uncomfortableness this is causing, as it brings up the conversation - and maybe that is not a bad thing.
Footballers can take a stand on any issue they wish - it is you that seems to want them to concentrate on the sole issue of racism - not I. Not every issue is defined by the colour of someone’s skin. It is not the only issue facing the species at this moment.
Marcus Rashford quietly showed just what can be achieved - and more power to him.
I have never said footballers should not take a stand against racism - I applaud them for doing so. But it has run its course - it is over a year now since this gesture began. It is not the only issue. Listen to what John Barnes says - his main question paraphrased is “So what does it achieve, where does it go from here?” When is victory declared? Good questions.
When are the gestures of millionaire footballers - some of whom get paid by one of the most racist, sexist states on the planet (can you see the hypocrisy there?) - going to pay off? Next year, five years, twenty years?
A heart disease campaign, endorsed by some of the fittest athletes on the planet, could save thousands of lives across Europe - whether Erikson suffered a heart attack or not. But as I said actually saving lives is not part of the virtuous political agenda. So what if it’s followed by an Alzheimers campaign or an anti-smoking campaign or a gay rights campaign? - Racism is not the only issue.
The problem with much of the current thinking is " If you don’t support x then you are racist" That is absolute child-like bullshit. Can you see how ridiculous that thinking is - so John Barnes, Will Zaha, Les Ferdinand etc - are all racists?
I could not understand your final sentence - I have not seen your comments relating to Erikson.It seems pretty reasonable to assume there was heart failure given that a defibrilator was used - cause of the incident as yet undetermined.
I get what you are saying and to a certain extent, I can agree. However, its not a zero sum game. The players can protest against racism, they too can protest for better management of heart disease etc… its not an either or…I had friends who questioned when I took a stand in my own individual ways when there was a terrorist attack on the French teacher a while ago but did not openly speak up about BLM. I told them, well, it just happen that the former cause resonate with me at that moment more. That does not mean BLM is less important or that the former cause is more important, its just one cause I am more aligned with.
So while I am one of those who “agree with the cause but doubtful about the vehicle”, I don’t think there is a need to put down the knee movement just to replace it with another. I think the football players have huge reaches that will enable them to fight for many causes at the same time.
Agree almost entirely - except that for a “campaign” to work it would need the backing and endorsement of the FA. It is unlikely they would fully get behind more than a single campaign at any one time, as it would risk diluting the message of both.
I was defending Rashford to the hilt on on here last year when he was getting shit.
And I’ve given my career to environmentalism and climate change, so please don’t suggest I don’t care about anything except race.
I’m supporting some lads to make the stand that they want to make against the shit they gave to deal with every time they play football. It’s their decision, it’s their response.
There is something about racism that prompts people to think and say, yeah but there are other issues to focus on. Campaigners on other issues don’t get this. I’ve never heard of nature campaigners or anti poverty activists being told that they should be concerned about heart disease.
RE Barnes, I’m sure there is stuff he’s said about the knee that I haven’t read, but his stance on issues of race is typically “ok, that’s great, and then what?”. It is not an argument for not doing the thing being discussed, but an argument for a “yes AND” approach. There is an argument that without something as high profile as footballers continuing to take the knee the momentum behind the conversation of what else to do can be lost.
More fundamentally, approaching complex issues from the perspective that unless you can solve it with one single action then you shouldn’t bother is just nihilism.
With that said, the issue Kopstar raises is a good one - how do we get out of this now? At what point can they stop taking a knee or focus on something else?
Its been over a year for this “campaign” - answer the questions raised by Barnes and others given that you wholeheartedly support this “campaign” Or will you just keep avoiding them and persist throwing the “you must be racist” innuendo.
What is it achieving?
Where does it go from here?
How long does it continue?
How do you reconcile the hypocrisy of the Man City players for instance.
What has the 20 years of anti-racism campaigns by footballs governing bodies achieved? Less racism?
[quote=“Mascot, post:1061, topic:1336”]
There is something about racism that prompts people to think and say, yeah but there are other issues to focus on. Campaigners on other issues don’t get this. I’ve never heard of nature campaigners or anti poverty activists being told that they should be concerned about heart disease
And you think unconscious bias isn’t a thing?
I will try to spell this out for you.
Christian Erikson had a suspected heart attack mid game in one of the biggest tournaments on the planet.
Heart Disease kills 18 Million people a year worldwide - WHO estimate
A campaign to identify the symptoms, causes and the actions to take should it happen near you and beamed into millions of homes at a time when this disease is on everyone’s mind WOULD SAVE LIVES. Real results in the real world - almost guaranteed. It is a case of seizing the moment to stop people dying.
It is not unconscious bias that colours mine and the likes of John Barnes opinions it is a rational and logical desire to achieve real-world not theoretical change from any campaign that is launched. And that includes approaches to diminish and eradicate racism.
Perhaps if you assessed the efficacy of taking the knee in the same way, without trying to constantly call out people for imagined racism, you could work towards more tangible results.
Instead it is just a case of keep on doing it even though it changes nothing. Saying that something does not work, that it does not achieve the desired results, is not saying that you agree with racists - it is saying that the approach needs to be reconsidered. That energies need to be devoted in another direction. One that may achieve the desired outcome.
Absolutely - I am still waiting to hear, what the “And” is. I suspect we will never hear concrete and workable “next steps” that derive directly from the taking the knee campaign.
To be quite honest I am surprised that my suggestion to use the shocking events of two nights ago to create a positive by highlighting the extreme problem of heart disease has been met with such negativity.
Here is a prime opportunity - one that I am sure most players would embrace (for who has not been impacted by this disease in some way) to instruct and highlight effective measures to combat the number one killer in the world*.
Instead what was intended to be an idea shaped in concern for the health of my fellow man has somehow been twisted and it has been intimated that I am a racist - which would be ironic f it were not so laughable…
*If and when it is established that it was indeed heart failure of some kind.
Therefore I will withdraw from this conversation and wish you all good health.
