What is the point of a black players union?

Henry'sCat - again, exactly right!

Personally if someone called me a white C - I don't think I would be offended because it's not something that particularly bothers me. It's like when people make "your mum" comments - they have no effect on me.

Whereas they could say something else that would be more personal perhaps and it would offend me deeply.

I know many black who are equally unmoved by comments about their colour, whereas mention another part of their lives and they will be hugely offended.

Surely the offensiveness of a comment should be judged by the intention and offense caused and not by some abstract list with no justifiable explanation.

And this bit is just silly - pretty much every historical example used in this thread involves the minority oppressing the majority - historical examples all around the world of incoming settlers displacing and subjugating the indigenous population all fit this.
-----------------------------------------------

I said it in terms of power. Its very difficult to discuss a very sensitive subject if you take it out of context. I stated quite clearly that the terms are power constructs. England has a history of using subjecting majorities in many countries. Thats why they were able to create an Empire. And the English used their superior developed war skills to subjugate far greater populations.

I was referring to modern day countries and how minorities are affected by majorities in those power relationships within countries.

The topic started with why would black players feel the need to form a black union. And I believe that comes from the fact that blacks players have felt let down by their main player union regarding their non-reaction towards how Terry has been treated lightly compared to Suarez. And maybe even how Suarez has been 'let of' compared to everyone else in this country in any other occupation.

Is being called black automatically derogatory then?
--------------------------------
Of course it is. Because Terry meant it as such. Thats how the FA adjudicated.


I'd take offence, granted it'd be a little confusing if they were white too - but if that wasn't the case, I see absolutely no difference and I'm amazed that you do.
------------------------------------

Why exactly would you be offended if some called you a white so and so?

When has calling someone 'white' become derogatory? Thats quite hilarious.


I explained where power constructs are considered more abusive than ones of humiliation. And it is not limited to race. Why do you think the chief whip of the Conservative party has been forced to resign after calling the policeman a 'pleb'?

"Why exactly would you be offended if some called you a white so and so?"

Why exactly would you be offended if some called you a black so and so?

"When has calling someone 'white' become derogatory? Thats quite hilarious."

When has calling someone 'black' become derogatory? Thats quite hilarious.

Like I said, I fail to see the difference - an idea you fail to even consider, in fact you just tell me I'm wrong and effectively laugh in my face.

"I explained where power constructs are considered more abusive than ones of humiliation."

And I explained the very thing you've questioned in the bits of my post you haven't quoted - so why ask?

"And it is not limited to race."

Of course, that was my point earlier.

"Why do you think the chief whip of the Conservative party has been forced to resign after calling the policeman a 'pleb'?"

Well, mainly because people don't really know what pleb means, and for some reason over time it's become derogatory......but of course I understand your point.

"And I explained the very thing you've questioned in the bits of my post you haven't quoted - so why ask?"

In fact, reading back again, the bit you haven't quoted, you then effectively state as your answer to the bit you have quoted. Hilariously.

Why exactly would you be offended if some called you a black so and so?
When has calling someone 'black' become derogatory? Thats quite hilarious.
---------------------------------------

I am not black. But I can understand why any black would take offense because an abuse targeted at a black person, specifically related to the colour of his skin brings in the power relationships that have existed in the past where white people have enslaved and treated blacks as sub-human. The point I have made before. Whites have generally not been subjugated by blacks. However whites have subjugated other whites and it is extremely offensive if you use racial epitaphs directed at other whites in that context as well. I gave you the example of the Irish and the term 'Paddy' and so on.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

“I am not black. But I can understand why any black would take offense because an abuse targeted at a black person, specifically related to the colour of his skin brings in the power relationships that have existed in the past where white people have enslaved and treated blacks as sub-human. The point I have made before. Whites have generally not been subjugated by blacks. However whites have subjugated other whites and it is extremely offensive if you use racial epitaphs directed at other whites in that context as well. I gave you the example of the Irish and the term 'Paddy' and so on.”

Comments specifically related to the colour of his skin do not automatically bring in the power relationships you describe. They can in cases, but do not always.
If it is about power then your argument is self defeating – since there is nothing about race which makes it special and different from other forms of abuse. If racial abuse is worse then it is worse because of the power aspect you describe and which you accept can be present in other forms of abuse.
If working class people can also feel that way when abused. Ginger people can. Ugly people can. People with glasses can… then why is race the one people focus on when far more abuse goes on and is ignored?

Comments specifically related to the colour of his skin do not automatically bring in the power relationships you describe. They can in cases, but do not always.
----------------------------------

Absolutely agree.


If racial abuse is worse then it is worse because of the power aspect you describe and which you accept can be present in other forms of abuse.
---------------------------

Indeed it can. My point is that abuse based on power constructs is worse than common type of abuse. Racial abuse is just one form of that. And other forms of power construct abuse is not ignored either or treated less seriously.

I gave the example of how someone of higher class, the chief whip of the conservative party was forced to resign after he abused a policeman (working class) for doing his job. The abuse was based on a power construct, class relationship in this case, where the policeman was considered less important and called a pleb.

Interesting as this debate is about quite a serious topic, have to get back to work!

Jenius
Glad we seem to be agreeing. There is nothing inherently more offensive in racial abuse than other forms of abuse.
I think the divide you make between power based abuse and abuse just to humiliate is a tenuous one… I think actually it would be tidier to just say that abuse is worse if it offends more. That way the power based connection you describe could still apply, but only in so far as it was relevant to each individual case – and how much offence it caused.

Some people will be highly offended by racial insults, some people will be highly offended by the term pleb… equally some will not be offended by reference to their race.