I really think they're shooting themselves in the foot by suggest a black players against racism group and a white players against racism group!

For football it's just about your skills nobody cares if your black or white or brown or yellow.
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry mate but a lot of people DO care about a persons skin colour, and it's these people that abuse these black footballers.
All this not wearing the shirts is a small protest to say they are not happy with what is and has been going on.
It may be silly to you, but it's very serious for them and a lot of coloured people

All these occured because the FA fecked up about Terry.....

it's very serious for them and a lot of coloured people
-------------------

grandad?! i thought you were dead!

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Only a small minority of people are racist and always will be. There is not a big racism problem in England but obviously when it happens it must be dealt with harshly. Who are these people trying to preach to? Most of us are not racist anyway. The people who are racist will just be fuelled with more hatred because of this black players union because far right people love to moan about that kind of stuff. My point is a black players union is a bad idea. If you want to be equal then why seperate yourself?

LNB!

Tears in my eyes, fella.

IMO we should kick out black players all together. That'll stop racism

You might just have something there El Cap - maybe this could be extended into society in general, they could have their own section on buses, that sort of thing, maybe they could all live together too. Why has no-one thought of this before?

they should have targeted the FA,Chelsea and Liverpool not Kick it Out, other than that their protest is fine

AFCISMYTEAM
I disagree – I don’t think people do care about race. It is whether you are good enough that matters. I know a lot of Rangers fans who disliked Mo Johnston because he was Catholic… as soon as he started scoring goals for their team they were converted!
Let’s not confuse abuse which references race to actual racism. Abuse is abuse is abuse… there’s not necessarily any meaning behind it. Someone might call a player a ‘bald idiot’ – that doesn’t mean they are anti-bald people!
Should we have a bald footballers union? A gingers union? An ugly players union?

Mr Mortimer...I dunno where you live but a lot of people do care about race.
How do you explain Barca fans ripping Eto, Italians against Balotelli, the amount of abuse Anton and Rio now get via twitter, and every week on the pitch?

grandad?! i thought you were dead!
======

Let’s not confuse abuse which references race to actual racism. Abuse is abuse is abuse… there’s not necessarily any meaning behind it. Someone might call a player a ‘bald idiot’ – that doesn’t mean they are anti-bald people!
Should we have a bald footballers union? A gingers union? An ugly players union?
-----
If when resorting to abuse you reference race your a racist, you don't have to be in the KKK to be considered an actual racist.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Godleebarnes - I think the FA in fact said Terry was not a racist!

Racial discrimination is different to abuse.

AFCISMYTEAM
A fan may well rip a player – that doesn’t mean that the race is the cause.
Robbie Savage got a lot of abuse… it wasn’t because he was white – it’s because of his personality. When people ripped him they would mock his long hair… it’s not because they didn’t like people with long hair – it’s because they wanted to knock him. If they called him a Welsh idiot it’s not because they have anything against Welsh people it’s just because that was where he was from… the same people that abused him would happily cheer on any Welshmen in their own side.
Italians that don’t like Mario aren’t racist necessarily, he is a divisive character! If Joey Barton were playing for England there would be some people booing him do you not think?
And Ferdinand gets abuse because he is a high profile celebrity footballer… a footballer who is controversial. He has failed a drugs test, he has refused to shake Suarez’ hand, he refused to wear an anti-Racism T-shirt… he has posted racially insensitive tweets on twitter… could it not be for any of these reasons? Why have you assumed it is because he is black?

Godleebarnes - I think the FA in fact said Terry was not a racist!

Racial discrimination is different to abuse.
-----
Are you saying because the FA said that John Terry isn't racist that means he isn't? Or that the same logic applies in similar situations?
My point is if when abusing someone you resort to their colour, that makes you racist on some level you may not believe your race is superior but whether its conscious or subconsciously you believe that there's something negative about the persons skin colour you are abusing.

Godleebarnes
I’m saying that in a court of law JT was found not guilty, therefore legally he is not a racist.
When the FA found him guilty of racial abuse, they explicitly stated that he was not a racist!

I don’t really understand why you have singled out race in abuse - “if when abusing someone you resort to their colour”
Is colour more offensive than height or hair colour or weight or any other thing that people get abused for?

Will singing “who ate all the pies” be considered size-ist?
What about jeering when someone misses a shot – will that be ability-ist?
Because in resorting to abusing someone for their ability, size, hair-colour, ugliness, you are being an ‘ist’ about something aren’t you?
I think it is more simple than that… fans will cheer their own side and boo the opposition. There’s not necessarily an ist behind it… it’s just trying to put the opposition off of their game and encourage your own players to play better.

I don’t really understand why you have singled out race in abuse - “if when abusing someone you resort to their colour”
Is colour more offensive than height or hair colour or weight or any other thing that people get abused for?
---
Yeah .

Godleebarnes... is it?

If so why?

What about homophobia... is that better or worse abuse than racial?

History and about the same.

History?
I genuinely don’t understand the logic behind that.
If I call someone a term commenting on an aspect of their physical appearance – it is more offensive if it has been used before in history?
When I make the comment I am not referencing any event in history – so why does it matter? Why is it relevant even?

What particular bit of history do you think is important here?

Will the history have any impact on the lives of the person involved even? For example if it is something like the slave trade that happened hundreds of years ago that could have no impact on a black person who was born and lived his entire life in the home counties. Whereas calling someone a ginger so and so could be highly offensive if his father or brother committed suicide because they had ginger hair.


Homophobia is about the same as racism… why? Surely all abuse based on ignorance is the same. Abusing someone because they are fat is just as ridiculous and offensive as abusing someone for having ginger hair or blue eyes… or for long hair… or an ugly face.

Has there ever been a point in history where large groups of a certain hair colour or height been killed or enslaved purely on that basis?

You didn’t seem to answer my questions for some reason.
As to yours - there are a couple of points to make.
Firstly let’s just be clear about this… a comment of ‘you black so and so’, is worse than a comment of ‘you ginger so and so’ because in the past people have been enslaved purely because of their colour?

Under Pol Pot weren’t people rounded up and executed if they wore glasses? Therefore by the same logic calling someone “four-eyes”, because of the history, is as bad as racism… Equally in Na$i invasions of Eastern Europe many people were enslaved because they had big noses – and were mistaken for being Jewish. They were not Jewish – they were rounded up and sent to concentration camps purely on the basis that they had large noses. Therefore surely by your logic calling someone “Big Conk” is as bad as racism?

Or does it depend on how many have been killed as to how bad the offence is? If only one person has died it is acceptable abuse, if there’s a tribe of people it’s bad, and if it’s more than that it’s unacceptable?
The person doing the abusing needs no knowledge of the history involved, the person being abused need have no knowledge of the history involved. If it is abuse that is related to something that has happened in the past then ignorance is no excuse. And this is worse than for example a manager who had cancer having fans singing songs saying he should have died?

Secondly – what is a person’s colour? Is it not just a part of their physical appearance much like a nose or big ears or small feet? It is all just genetics. And abusing someone for their hair colour or height is abusing them for their genetic make-up in exactly the same way as abusing them for another part of their genetic make-up… their colour.