International News Black Lives Matter

In such situations I look for intent. From what I've heard I don't think he is or was racist. Language is important but I understand how people fall foul of current acceptability. I also think really hard to make sure I use the right terms when I discuss such issues always concerned I may say the wrong thing. I don't think it should be so. That said, given his specific role, it should have been second nature to him (in the same way no one with any sense would use the N word) to get it right so I can see why he walked.

The thing that got me was that he actually explained why he used the language he did in respect to colour having worked in the US where it was the preferred term of reference.

In terms of "girls don`t like the ball being kicked at them" he was quoting someone!

"I talked to a coach – and I’m not certain this is true – and said, ‘what’s the issue with goalkeepers in the women’s game?’ She said, ‘young girls, when they take up the game (aged) six, seven, eight, just don’t like having the ball kicked at them hard’, right? They prefer to kick it than have it kicked at them. We have to understand we need to look at different ways to bring women into the goalkeeper’s position.”

The gay "life choice" was also taken out of context.... he said:

"The real issue is once you run out in front of 60,000 people and you decided on Monday that you wanted to disclose your sexuality – and I would never pressure anybody to disclose their sexuality – what I would want to do is to know that anybody who runs out onto the pitch and says, ‘I’m gay. I’m proud of it and I’m happy. It’s a life choice, and I’ve made it because my life is a better place’, I’d like to believe and I do believe they would have the support of their mates in the changing room.”

Clumsy, probably ...... as bad as made out? No.
 
Clumsy, probably ...... as bad as made out? No.

I've made this point on the other thread, but if you have someone who is so "clumsy" that they make four gaffes in the course of one conference call, then just maybe - regardless of whether there was any prejudicial intent behind the comments - they don't have the smarts and diplomacy necessary to run an organization like the FA!
 
In such situations I look for intent. From what I've heard I don't think he is or was racist. Language is important but I understand how people fall foul of current acceptability. I also think really hard to make sure I use the right terms when I discuss such issues always concerned I may say the wrong thing. I don't think it should be so. That said, given his specific role, it should have been second nature to him (in the same way no one with any sense would use the N word) to get it right so I can see why he walked.
It wasnt the N word so much but he was threatening......should NEVER get the job ...but he probably will .....
 
I've made this point on the other thread, but if you have someone who is so "clumsy" that they make four gaffes in the course of one conference call, then just maybe - regardless of whether there was any prejudicial intent behind the comments - they don't have the smarts and diplomacy necessary to run an organization like the FA!

The majority of his "bad words" were quotations from other people he had spoken too!
He was discussing his real experiences, which is the primary purpose of Parliamentary Committee`s so the politicians understand the impact, or potential impact, of their decisions.
Should he just pretend it didn`t happen, save his job and not get the reality of the grass roots heard?
Sometimes the reality needs to be told and sometimes starkly for the greater good.
 
There are a couple of things that always come to mind when discussing this.

Firstly, it seems to me that *intention* is all important. I am sure I am a dinosaur myself, and by using the 'wrong' language could well give offence. It would of course be completely unintentional and certainly not intended as an insult or rudeness. On the other hand, a far-right person can make 'BAME' sound like a swear word. Which of us is being racist? (However if I were running an organisation specifically dealing with these issues I would certainly be sure to get myself up to speed and use language that didn't cause offence, even inadvertent!)

Secondly, is lumping a whole load of very different people together in a 'BAME' category really that respectful? When it encompasses some of my own family and goes through those whose roots are African, Indian, East European, Asian, Arabic etc etc it seems so broad as to be a synonym for 'not white British' and I am not sure that some of those groups have that much in common anyway - culturally or historically. And then of course describing someone by then skin colour is a very blunt instrument. My sister in law is black British, we have much more in common (I am white British) than I would with a white person who had come into the country from Sweden and she has much more in common with me than someone who has just got off the boat from Jamaica. We are a 'mongrel race' - every single one of us anyway, with bits of this and that in our make up and that is only going to increase over the years (a good thing too, IMO).
 
Honestly, I think the fact that the 'Young girls don't want to be goalkeepers' is a quote makes him look even more like an idiot.

I mean come on - you're talking to the Parliamentary Committee on the issue, and rather than present data on the subject, or a reasoned analysis, you instead offer one lazy, stereotypical quote you received from a single coach.....that you even admit that you're not even sure is true!?!

If that was the quality of evidence that I was using to back up a hypothesis in my job, I'd expect to get fired as well!
 
You could also mention economic circumstances, which can be strongly linked to skin colour. Perhaps that could be postmodern Marxism creeping in, if only @bashamwonderland would tell us what that is :giggle:
So my understanding of what postmodern marxism comes from listening to podcasts and, considering I am not a social scientist myself, I am not best placed to explain it using my own words. However, I did find the following helpful explanation on a dictionary website:

"A radical reworking of Marxism from the late 1970s, arising in reaction to classical Marxist materialism, economism, historical determinism, anti-humanism, and class reductionism and influenced by poststructuralism and postmodernism, notably in the rejection of grand narratives (including classical Marxism itself). These emerged in the late 1970s, associated with theorists such as Lyotard, Baudrillard, Foucault, the Argentine political theorist Ernesto Laclau (b.1935), the Belgian political theorist Chantal Mouffe (b.1943), and Stuart Hall. From the 1980s, post-Marxism was increasingly inflected by such cross-currents as feminism and postcolonialism. It is an anti-essentialist approach in which class, society, and history are no longer treated as unitary, universal, pre-discursive categories"

So to give my understanding of what this means, many Millennials and Gen Z subscribe to this post-70s ideology (whether they identify as such or not) in which:

a. Everything is a social construct, and at the same time;
b. We need to break down social boundaries.

I feel that the furtherance of this world view often comes at any cost to these people. Context? Context is a meaningless construct which is tainted by patriarchy and colonialism. Simple words can be seen in isolation and as such are forbidden in their entirety.

(See, for example, the latest issue regarding use of the word faggot in the Pogues' Xmas song.)

I actually can't remember why you asked me to explain this as I have been quite busy recently but I hope this gives you what you need.

You might consider listening to the lectures of Dr Jordan B Peterson if you'd like to hear more about this, from someone who actually knows about this stuff.
 
Long story short.
Somali`s vs the rest turf war..... been rolling on for years.

And some of them are utilising the legal aid system to appeal.....

However, #BLM yes?
 
So my understanding of what postmodern marxism comes from listening to podcasts and, considering I am not a social scientist myself, I am not best placed to explain it using my own words. However, I did find the following helpful explanation on a dictionary website:

"A radical reworking of Marxism from the late 1970s, arising in reaction to classical Marxist materialism, economism, historical determinism, anti-humanism, and class reductionism and influenced by poststructuralism and postmodernism, notably in the rejection of grand narratives (including classical Marxism itself). These emerged in the late 1970s, associated with theorists such as Lyotard, Baudrillard, Foucault, the Argentine political theorist Ernesto Laclau (b.1935), the Belgian political theorist Chantal Mouffe (b.1943), and Stuart Hall. From the 1980s, post-Marxism was increasingly inflected by such cross-currents as feminism and postcolonialism. It is an anti-essentialist approach in which class, society, and history are no longer treated as unitary, universal, pre-discursive categories"

So to give my understanding of what this means, many Millennials and Gen Z subscribe to this post-70s ideology (whether they identify as such or not) in which:

a. Everything is a social construct, and at the same time;
b. We need to break down social boundaries.

I feel that the furtherance of this world view often comes at any cost to these people. Context? Context is a meaningless construct which is tainted by patriarchy and colonialism. Simple words can be seen in isolation and as such are forbidden in their entirety.

(See, for example, the latest issue regarding use of the word faggot in the Pogues' Xmas song.)

I actually can't remember why you asked me to explain this as I have been quite busy recently but I hope this gives you what you need.

You might consider listening to the lectures of Dr Jordan B Peterson if you'd like to hear more about this, from someone who actually knows about this stuff.
Why Foucault rather than Gramsci? Seems like a strange choice. I guess we can agree on excluding Althusser; obviously very dodgy! Still, it that is what the podcast says.
 
Long story short.
Somali`s vs the rest turf war..... been rolling on for years.

And some of them are utilising the legal aid system to appeal.....

However, #BLM yes?

Because white people aren't in gangs and never commit crime....
 
Because white people aren't in gangs and never commit crime....

They tend to be at the top of the tree and those highlighted are the street "soldiers".
Unfortunately the level of street violence around Bede Park had escalated to the point it became a "no go zone" for everyone.
The facts of the matter are that it was local, black/coloured youth committing the crimes until it reached open warfare.

Without doubt there are white kids running for dealers on the local estates, however they have a slightly higher value of life than someone born in a war torn country who has then made the journey to the UK bringing the "life has no value" mind set with them.
 
Without doubt there are white kids running for dealers on the local estates, however they have a slightly higher value of life than someone born in a war torn country who has then made the journey to the UK bringing the "life has no value" mind set with them.

Incredible, the insight you have!
 
They tend to be at the top of the tree and those highlighted are the street "soldiers".
Unfortunately the level of street violence around Bede Park had escalated to the point it became a "no go zone" for everyone.
The facts of the matter are that it was local, black/coloured youth committing the crimes until it reached open warfare.

Without doubt there are white kids running for dealers on the local estates, however they have a slightly higher value of life than someone born in a war torn country who has then made the journey to the UK bringing the "life has no value" mind set with them.

Yes, all white people have a higher value on life:

 
It is staggering the amount of people that seem to think that because a black person kills another black person that somehow negates the Black Lives Matter message entirely. I'm just not sure how people can be that blinkered to the issue.
 
Yes, all white people have a higher value on life:


I specifically related it to drugs/gangs/runners by differentiating with "they", to most of us life is sacrosanct and people generally understand that stabbing someone is highly likely to cause them serious injury or death.
It is well known that there are postcode drug gangs operating in the city.
More murders, life threatening injuries & stabbings occur in areas operated by the Somalian gangs.
It doesn`t take a qualification in criminology to spot them in St Mathews.
Equally it isn`t difficult to spot the white lads who are runners/low level dealers in our postcode which is classified as deprived on most Government & Council measures as it incorporates an estate that makes the Leys look like Mayfair!
 
It is staggering the amount of people that seem to think that because a black person kills another black person that somehow negates the Black Lives Matter message entirely. I'm just not sure how people can be that blinkered to the issue.

As previously society changes over time, it will not change overnight irrespective of a movement that sprung from the death of a criminal.
Take a look at this and replace the word black with white and folk would squeal "racist" https://blacklivesmatter.com/partners/

Why not Human Lives Matter? Or don`t Asian, Chinese, Mixed Race, White, Brown etc etc matter?
 
Back
Top Bottom