Bellusci's alleged racist slur

"Let's say Bellusci didn't make the slur.

Given Bellusci's command of the English languish, would he know how to make a racist slur in broken English and, would he actually know the "N" word or the "black barsteward" phrase, and what it means."

you say we should say he didn't say it and then put forward another argument for if he had said it

"6, Bellusci is Italian, you can actually distinguish that by the colour of his skin, isn't eyesight amazing."

I genuinely don't understand this. Are you saying that because hes a different nationality he can't be racist?

"2, Bellusci has Duke and Austin as team mates, I can't see Bellusci being racist.

3, Bellusci has had previous opportunities to make racist slurs against players from other teams, but he never has."

This is ridiculous. Because he has black teammates he can't be racist or say something racist? moronic.


Now I am also going to say this. I feel that whatever happened with jerome has been grossly overblown in terms of the issue. I support bellusci and my team no matter what. I merely wanted to point out how poorly your arguments were structured and why a lot of them make no real sense or are completely irrelevant

Champers - thank you for your response, I think we are getting to the crux of the matter here.

You are assuming a racial insult has links to historical racism - like the slave trade. But what about these examples:
1) If two children (unaware of the historical events you mention) are playing in the park and one teases the other for ginger hair the other for dark skin - then would you punish one child more than the other? They are both teasing appearance/genetic make up - and they are not referencing any historical events so why are they not equal?

2) If a white man is racially insulted by a black man, would that be as bad as white on black racism because there is a greater historical precedent of black subjugation? Or is all racism equal in spite of the historical links you describe?

3) Pol Pot killed people because they wore glasses... does this historical fact mean that any comments such as "four eyes" should be on the special list too?
Research shows that those with 'poor' teeth are less likely to get jobs or promotions - so there is an active discrimination against people whose appearance is not aesthetically pleasing... why are all insults on appearance not on this list?

I don't think it is short sighted to judge how offensive something is based on the amount of offence it causes. That is just common sense.

"Hurting one person's feelings pales into insignificance to what black people have been subject to throughout history. How are you not getting that?"

I think you are missing the point.
Yes - saying something offensive to someone is insignificant compared to slavery (for example). But we aren't comparing verbal abuse with the slave trade... we are comparing one form of verbal abuse with another. We are comparing one person's hurt feelings with another person's hurt feelings. Surely the degree of hurt caused is a good measure to judge how offensive something is?!

http://www.suttoncoldfieldobserver.co.uk/Defender-centre-racism-storm-play-Wolves/story-23396136-detail/story.html

Bellusci plays against Wolves

So he should. He's not guilty of anything as the matter stands.

Mr M - that's quote a thought-provoking post and I certainly see the point you were making more clearly now.

I think what we have to consider strongly in a case such as the Bellusci/Jerome matter however, is that the authorities, clubs, players and fans have campaigned tirelessly to rid the racist disease from our game with the "Kick it Out" initiative.

I'm not doubting the validity of the points you've made, as I say you argue those very well and it's tough to disagree with anything you've raised there, but I think we need to look at things in perspective and realise why the authorities have spent so much time, money & focus on stamping out racism.

My oldest and dearest friend is a girl of mixed race, though anyone who didn't know her would probably assume she was black given her skin tone. I've witnessed so much abuse directed at her in our lifetimes as both children and adults. I'm not claiming this makes me any kind of expert on the issue, but it does give you some insight and understanding as to what black people have had to suffer in their lives. She's no issue if someone calls her a b-tch (boy she can be!) but when people prefix it with the word black, I can get why it upsets her so much. The colour of her skin plays no part in the make up of her personality, yet she's had to grow up feeling different to the majority because of the ignorant minority attaching a stigma to a person's colour.

Thanks for your response and sorry if I came off short to you. I was struggling to understand your point and was still riled up at the attitude of the original poster, who I maintain is an ignorant pr-ck, but I can see you were just looking at things from a different angle, which is fair enough. Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy debate

"I have a couple of issues with that argument. Firstly - I don't think either insult will start a war. Secondly - I don't think there is an automatic correlation between the broadness of an insult and the offence taken. For example I would be more offended by a more personalised/specific insult that relates to me... general insults would offend me less."

MrMortimer, I don't think a war will come of this either, the thing is, as much as both insults to the recipriant are no better than each other, it is a known fact that one will start a fight, and the other outside of the sports stadiums could start a riot,(has happened more then once!)or even wars!..

Racist remarks have been known to start riots, and insults to the mother have been known to start fights!..

If this was on the street then which could start the most trouble?..

It is a known fact that whatever might have happened in the wrong place could have caused a riot but at the same time people would go to war over it!..

Both could cause death in the heat of the moment, but which would cause the most?..

People insulting one another, or people insulting a nation, both are man kind thing's, but on a scale one is worst than the other because of what could follow it!..

And like Champers says, I see what your saying, but looking at it from the scale of things as to which could be classed as worst!..

The mother insult is as bad to the man/woman recieving it, the same as for the people recieving insults for what you have mentioned!..

But the racist thing is dragging more than just your mother into it!..

No place for any, and healthy debate, well said Champers!.

And here's hoping that the right outcome comes of it and justice is brought to whoever is in the wrong!..

Pleasantly surprised by the responses here, too often when the subject of race is mentioned the responses seem to be a competition to show off poster's ignorance - (that is on both sides).

I find the example of the mixed race friend interesting, and it throws up some more problems I think. My own brother is very dark skinned and when we were at school he was sometimes called offensive names because of that. Was that racist? He is white... so the names didn't actually refer to his race, but they did mention the colour of his skin... is that still racism?

I still doubt whether a general insult is more offensive than a specific one... personally I would be far more affected by something that is definitely only about me than a general one - but even if that is the case, I still think it is important to emphasise that the insult should be judged on how offensive it is, and not just because it happens to reference a certain subject.

Racism has been, and still is, a huge problem in the world. I don't think elevating race in importance is a way of ending racism. In many ways I think it is counter productive. If someone is denied a job just because of the colour of their skin that is scandalous... is it less scandalous for someone to be denied a job just because of the colour of their hair? If someone is stabbed for being black... again is that a worse crime than being stabbed for being ginger? I don't think it is. Equally if someone is abused for the colour of their skin that is unacceptable, just as abuse for many other subjects are. Now of course thankfully there aren't many cases of people being denied a job for being ginger, or being stabbed for the 'wrong' colour hair... but there is abuse for all manner of subjects, and it is wrong that one should be singled out.

I hope justice is served, though I fear the racist tag will be with the defender for the rest of his career... even if he is found not guilty

I hope justice is served, though I fear the racist tag will be with the defender for the rest of his career... even if he is found not guilty

---

That's because in cases where it's one persons word against another, not guilty doesn't really mean not guilty, it just means it can't be proven either way.

This allows individuals to be racist to other individuals and get away with it, and allows individuals to claim racism by other individuals falsely.

Nobody has any idea which scenario this case falls under, so blind club support is pointless.

The best thing to do is hope someone else heard something, either way, and then justice can be served, either way.

The thing is. No Leeds player will come forward if Bellusci did say something racist and no Norwich player will come forward if he didn't.

It also allows false accusations to be used as a weapon, if someone is guilty by rumour and another's word. History is littered with people who make false accusations (ask the Hamilton's) to make a profit, or suit their own agenda. Absolutely not saying that here - but right now there's a load of BS being spouted about a subject where bottom line it appears to be one person's word against another.

Without concrete evidence or visual images which support what was uttered, then this has to be parked as insufficient evidence. I'd rather that, than an innocent person be branded for life, because of what "might" have been said or understood.

Nobody in there right mind wants racists in the game, or in the country - but at the same time, I don't want a culture or environment where you can be branded (and it sticks for life) as being any particular low life, without some real evidence and facts to back it up.