The Forum > Article Comments > Men, racism and football > Comments
Men, racism and football : Comments
By Peter West, published 16/6/2010Most white people don't really understand what it means to be black or what it means to be ridiculed, victimised or humiliated.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 9:49:43 AM
| |
To walk into a shop and have people look at you as if your going to steal something, to constantly be asked “what nationality are you?”, to walk down the street or into an organisation and be surrounded by people of a different ethnicity, for people to be surprised when they find out you have a job or are going to university, to be seen as exotic or a novelty within your own country - this is what it is like to be non-white. White privilege gives a barrier which often equates to ‘normal’ or ‘not visible’. whiteness it's self encourages it's members to not see themselves as a race/culture/group/membership, but the norm to compare everything else to.
Posted by TillyJ, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 11:03:40 AM
| |
Well said Tillyj
To your list I add: The automatic entitlement that is accorded to those for just being white - is so pervasive that only those who are not-white have the necessary perspective to see it. Also, bullying & name-calling does not make a man a man - just a thug. Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 12:15:19 PM
| |
White people do know what it is like to be discrimated against when they visit or live in countries where their skin colour is not the majority or where women are viewed in a different light. White people in non-white nations are also looked on suspicioulsy or as exotic. Sometimes the attention is not always negative but one of natural curiosity and interest.
White people who are disabled,obese, men/women, homeless, skinny, old or young, or of a different religion or who are just plain in appearance might also face discrimination. "Many Australians couldn’t see why the American singer Harry Connick Jr was grossly offended. This includes a large proportion of contributors to this online journal." Many could see why he was grossly offended in the context of his experience of American history, but not within the context of Australian humour where the culture is to take the mickey out of everyone including ourselves. It was a skit about the Jacksons, the Jacksons are not white and they have (or had) thick hair in the prime of the Jackson Five. If you are going to do a Jackson skit, and you leave the actors as white, this would be hugely inappropriate and would beg the question what is wrong or insulting about portraying a black person as black. There is no denying throughout history, skin colour has been a factor in the prejudices and fear of ignorant people, including spawning abhorrent organisations like the KKK. But we need to move on (which is not the same as forgetting). It is when we don't see a skit like this as racist that we know we have come full circle and no longer view someone's colour or hairstyle as either a negative or a positive, but simply a physical trait. Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 12:36:07 PM
| |
" The basic, fundamental, essential, core, bare-bones, hardnosed point here is that we hold different expectations of our elite sportspeople to those we do of other folk. For example, we expect ordinary citizens to behave with decency and respect towards members of the opposite sex, whereas with footballers we pretty much consider it a win if they return a girl’s underpants within six to eight weeks of an assault. Likewise, we expected ordinary citizens to refrain from calling other ordinary citizens black c#&ts as much as possible, but given how much footballers have on their minds — scrum moves, 40-20s, memorising Footy Show skits — it is surely no hanging offence if occasionally they forget such details.
And really, hasn’t Johns performed a useful service for us? Isn’t it good we’re all talking about issues of racism now? Everyone’s having a frank, healthy discussion about the problems that beset our society and sporting landscape, and that can only be a good thing. After all, if nobody was racist, we would never discuss racism! Do we really want that? No. We need racists, because without them, we’ll never get rid of racism. We certainly don’t want our children going around thinking racism isn’t a problem just because nobody is racist. YOU might want your children to grow up as fragile sheltered albino hothouse flowers, but I want more robust world. I want more racists being courageous enough to come out and speak their minds, creating a non-judgmental space where we can thrash all these complicated issues out, and come to an understanding with our racist brothers and sisters. So thank you, Joey. Thank you for coming out of the closet and sparking some much-needed debate. Racism is a real problem, and it’s one we’ll never solve unless racists everywhere stand up and say, "Yes, I am racist, and I have something to say!" In this, as in all things, footballers lead the way. God bless them all. " http://newmatilda.com/2010/06/16/why-racism-choice-champions Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 1:06:52 PM
| |
This has been done to death for days. In League there is no evidence whatsoever of any racism in selection, in fact indigenous players are probably overrepresented in some teams and at representative level.
League attracts many players from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Generally speaking that has been recognised as a good thing, giving many a youth something to do and pride in himself where he could otherwise have been involved in mischief. However it can also be expected that such players will also continue to act as people do in their social groups and among other things that includes the common use of profane and vulgar language. For some, everything is 'f' this and that and anyone, friend or foe can be an 'a', 'b' or a 'c' and there are other letters of the alphabet used too, with an increasing number of 't's' and 'p's' . Maybe the author has had occasion to visit poorer areas or perhaps he has ventured past building sites. For myself I can say that swearing and the 'c' word are now far from uncommon among women and especially girls, as any traveller on public transport will affirm. It is revolting and part of the raunch culture. For myself, I really wonder if Johns intended a racist slur at all coming from his background. For Johns and there are many like him, he could equally have been giving the greatest compliment possible to his opponents. Maybe it wasn't the actual words that were used, but something read into his manner and delivery by Tahu. It is how it is read by the offended person that matters and that makes it all the more confusing, given the similarity in the background and experience of the two men concerned and their familiarity with each other. contd.. Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 16 June 2010 1:16:07 PM
|
2) How many faults need to be discovered in the work of one historian before people stop discussing the work of Henry Reynolds as though he is a credible source of Australian history?
3) Everyone has been ridiculed at some point, including white people.