h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There is a movement in Coventry to have Craig Bellamy's face on the back of the urinals.

Purely for pleasure, however there is a fear it would scare children.

Seriously how badly have Liverpool FC, and their more moronic fans, damaged their reputation. Shameful, utterly shameful.

If United played Liverpool tomorrow i'd probably actually want United to win now.... jeez.

FB

Have a read of Collymore's "favourite" tweets. Not for the feint hearted.

http://goo.gl/ZzS7Q

H/T to Mr603

FB

It's repulsive. That's not about football or Liverpool, that's about unpleasant people taking joy in spreading hate and bile.

That'll be the Stan Collymore that punched Ulrika Jonsson to the ground before stamping on her head?

So that means he can't ever point out anything that is done in the world that is wrong ever again right?

FB

Yeah. That's the one. Not sure that makes it OK for him to be targeted with racial abuse though.

Come on swl, that's like being the guy who pops into every Winston Churchill thread to mention that he gassed the Kurds.

Just checking we're talking about the same scumbag.

But scumbag though his is for what he did it has absolutly no relevance to whether or not he has something interesting to say about racism in Football, or Society frankly.

FB

The same Collymore who's ripped into Alan Hansen for daring to say "coloured" on MOTD?

From his Twitter feed - "Coloured. What colour would that be? Blue? Green? Orange? White Black (not coloured). Black is fine. Mixed Race (not coloured). Half caste, not fine."

I've picked up the wrong end of the stick here. I didn't immediately see Collymore was re-tweeting offensive material to highlight it. Apologies.

(I still think he forfeited the right to be taken seriously on any subject when he beat up his girlfriend in a bar. Big on racism, not so keen on women eh?)

It was a white woman though.

Focusing on the Suarez incident it seems that Liverpool FC are saying that Suarez did not racially abuse Evra and should not be labelled a racist.

The FA statement itself does not say Suarez "racially abused" Evra (see below). It could perhaps be that the reporting by the BBC, the British newspapers and others that Suarez was found guilty of "racially abusing" Evra is a case of sloppy journalism.

"The FA statement The Independent Regulatory Commission announced its decision on 20 December 2011, which is as follows:
1. Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2. the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
3. Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000;
4. the [penalty] is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision."
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/luis-suarez-20-12-11

The FA Rule E3(1) and (2)
"3 (1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not
act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any
one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive,
indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E 3(1) including a reference to any one or more of a person’s ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual orientation or disability (an “aggravating factor”), a Regulatory Commission shall consider the imposition of an increased sanction, taking into account the following entry points: ..."

Hence an independent adjucation of the FA charge found Suarez guilty of "using insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour".

The question is - is this racism?

Some questions to askH2G2
1) a white man walks up to a black man and says "come here black man I wish to talk to you". Is this racism?
2) a white man walks up to a black man and calls him "you black idiot". Is this racism?

I'd like to think that reading the judgement would make Liverpool FC, LFC Players and LFC fans hang their heads in shame over their reaction to what happened.

However with the shameful hyperpartisanship in footy today I doubt it. And looking at twitter/fb/f365 etc it seems this is not the case.

FB

"is this racism?"

Not according to the FA, clearly. Insulting reference to - and they obviously picked this word very, very carefully - COLOUR. Look again at their list of unacceptable things. One of them is colour. Another, separate one is race. They've found him guilty of insulting based on colour. Don't think for a moment that that distinction has not been considered in depth.

"Some questions to askH2G2
1) a white man walks up to a black man and says "come here black man I wish to talk to you". Is this racism?
2) a white man walks up to a black man and calls him "you black idiot". Is this racism?"

I think this is at once more complex and at the same time simpler than it's often considered.

On the one hand, if I, a white man, were choosing a team from a group standing before me, and I indicated "him, the black guy", I would (assuming there was just the one black guy in the group) consider that obviously not racist. I'm indicating something distinctive about him in order to correctly identify him. There are those who would perhaps take issue with my use of the word "black", preferring perhaps some politically-correct alternative like "Afro-Caribbean" or "ethnic minority" or "person of colour". To which I say - do push off. Obviously if I used an actual racial epithet, that would be wrong, but there does come a point where it's reasonable to refuse to police your language to pander to a minority of brittle idiots who make a career of trumpeting their offence. So while it SHOULD be simple to say "no, that's not racist", there are those would would make it complex.

If I were to attack a man, calling him as I do so a "black [insert epithet]", this is hate crime. Now, on the one hand, surely here the point is the attack. If I'm actively trying to hurt someone, even just with my words, surely the details are unimportant. I'm using every tool at my disposal to make this person feel bad. If they've a point of difference to me, whatever it is, be it their weight, their hair colour, their political opinion or their race, I'll bring it up to make clear why I want them hurt. It does not *necessarily* mean I have that feeling towards everyone, or even ANYone, who shares that characteristic. I could shout abuse at the man who barges my trolley in Asda with the word "look where you're going you ginger ", while at the same time thinking Florence Welch is pretty much the hottest chick on the planet and considering Chris Evans a broadcasting genius and national treasure. So I'd say no... it's not *necessarily* racism.

But it usually is.

And worse, explicit use of such language creates a climate of fear and distrust. This is something on which I actually changed my mind as a result of a conversation on h2g2 a few years back. I could never previously understand why, when I was mugged, that it was somehow a less serious crime being beaten unconscious and robbed by people who were the same colour as me than it would have been for one of my black or Asian friends to have suffered exactly the same crime by exactly the same perpetrators.

But it is different, because of the atmosphere it creates. And it's that atmosphere that is apparently still, even today in... yes, 2012 (blimey), still around in football. And a lot of other places too. I doubt it will ever go away completely. The best we can hope for is to stay vigilant.

Background reading some may find of interest - http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors/hors244.pdf

>>I could shout abuse at the man who barges my trolley in Asda with the word "look where you're going you ginger ", while at the same time thinking Florence Welch is pretty much the hottest chick on the planet and considering Chris Evans a broadcasting genius and national treasure. So I'd say no... it's not *necessarily* racism.

>>But it usually is.

Pretty much agree. To suggest that it isn't racism/gingerism verges towards the old 'How can I be racist/gingerist...I have a black/ginger friend!' cop out. I'm therefore not sure I can get behind the 'not necessarily'. Rather, racists are capable of making exceptions. You think it's logical?

What our Man In The Supermarket has done is that he has reacted to the very first thing he has noticed about the trolley barger. I is significant to him in a way that all the barger's other characteristics - their height, clothing, etc. etc. - are not. Why? The only thing I can think of is that he must be ascribing imagined negative qualities of the group (trolley barging?) to the individual.

This stereotyping *generally* (not always) happens with race. We don't say 'You tall...' or 'You tie-wearing...'. (I will accept that some non-racial characteristics are also used as random insults - fat/big-nosed/bald - but I suggest that these are mentions of some characteristic which is judged undesirable per se. No - not polite - but a different thing?)

I understand that the unreliable Mr Suarez referred to Mr Evra's colour some seven times in two minutes. I guess it must have been pretty important to him.

Just read the report and they do go to pains to stress the context. While calling someone 'negro' in Uruguay could be inoffensive, it depends on the context and in an argument with someone it's hard to claim you are using a potentially offensive word in an inoffensive context.

With friends I use the words chubs and poof in a jokey manner but if we were having a row and I used those words they'd have every right to be offended. The fact I'm both fat and gay as the day is long and have friends who are similar, doesn't mean those two aren't offensive. Same goes for Suarez - the fact he has black family members, friends and team-mates doesn't render him incapable of racism.

Suarez didn't help himself by claiming actions that were clearly intended to wind Evra up (like pinching him and grabbing his head) as similarly inoffensive. The Koppites do damage their own credibility by defending him, but since when has that ever bothered them (or supporters of any other football team defending prats)?

"We don't say 'You tall...' or 'You tie-wearing...'. (I will accept that some non-racial characteristics are also used as random insults - fat/big-nosed/bald - but I suggest that these are mentions of some characteristic which is judged undesirable per se. No - not polite - but a different thing?)"

YOU might not say "You tall...", but certainly the taller kids in my class at school were regularly abused as "lanky", "snappy", "streaky" and other variations drawing attention to their difference from the perceived norm. Similarly "tie-wearing" might not be a regular insult, but "scruffy" certainly is.

I'd say it's very, very common to the point of almost universal that if you're actively trying to insult someone you'll grab at the first characteristic you can see that you perceive as
(a) different from yourself and
(b) undesirable.

And I'd suggest that even if you're not racist, isn't it likely that the very first, most prominent point of undesirable difference between a white and black man is going to be colour? I'd say it's not racist for a white person not to want to be black, btw.

This is all somewhat academic, however, and I'm certainly not defending racism. I just really, honestly believe that a kneejerk insult that mentions race isn't necessarily an indicator of underlying discriminatory prejudice.