[Archived] Black Players Association

[greco]

http://www.guardian....ion-plan-racism

Taylor's action plan calls for:

1

Speeding up the process of dealing with reported racist abuse with close monitoring of any incidents.

2

Consideration of stiffer penalties for racist abuse and to include an equality awareness programme for culprits and clubs involved.

3

An English form of the "Rooney rule" – introduced by the NFL in America in 2003 – to make sure qualified black coaches are on interview lists for job vacancies.

4

The proportion of black coaches and managers to be monitored and any inequality or progress highlighted.

5

Racial abuse to be considered gross misconduct in player and coach contracts (and therefore potentially a sackable offence).

6

Not to lose sight of other equality issues such as gender, sexual orientation, disability, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Asians in football.

1. the process should never be "speeded up", there needs to be a thorough investigation into events, before making any kind of judgement.

2 & 6. verbal abuse, in the heat of the moment, should not be punished harder, then leg breaking tackles , also in the heat of the moment. Physical violence should always be punished harder then verbal abuse. Thats how it is on society and so it should be in football.

3 & 4. Just as i thought, this is all about gaining power and looking for preferential treatment.

5. plain out lunacy.

[Amo]

Preferrential treatment? Yes, that wouldn't be good. But protecting people from a type of prejudice they recieve that others don't or putting things in place to give people the same access to opportunity is not. And we do not have equality when it comes to access to opportunity.

Out of interest, do you agree with the Rooney Rule?

[T.J.Newton]

All havin a 'black players association' will do is cause a divide amongst players which is the opposite of what is needed, Rio's just a thick jumped up idiot.

[Kelbo]

You don't see the need for it because you're utterly ignorant when it comes to this topic.

I'm not going to repeat myself from a few posts up, you can read it for yourself. Just as one example out of countless ones I can bring up supporting my point, in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry which found institutionalised racism in the police force, do you still not find any more need for a Black police officers force than you do a white police officers force?

No, not in an equal society! We can all state individual instances, what about a disabled Police society or a blin Police society, with refernce to the blind man tasered the other week, its wrong if you want a multiracial society!

[DeadlyDirk]

I have to admit I don't really agree with the Rooney rule. I know a little about the NFL but nothing really about how they pick their coaches and whether it's more structured in terms of qualifications you need before you are offered the top coaching roles so perhaps it does work over there if that's the case.

With football though qualifications are so arbituary, most decisions seem to be almost based on gut feeling rather than qualifications. It's often not the most qualified candidate who gets the job or that are even approached and interviewed so I don't think someone should have to be on the Interview list just because of the colour of his skin.

What qualifications do you look at in football to enforce a rule like this, is it their qualifications in terms of coaching badges, their track record as a manager, their history as a player, all of the previous?

How do you then judge performance as well in terms of this rule. Is Paul Ince now high on most candidates list as he is a former player for some of the best sides in Europe with numerous trophies to his name, a history of success in lower league management as well as being a former Premiership manager. (i'd also assume he'd have to have some coaching badges by now surely!)

Or does his playing record count for nothing, his premiership management count for nothing as it was a 'failure' (A neutral could argue he didn't get long to prove himself and after Kean his performance record doesn't look so bad.) and leave him just as someone who's done all right in lower leagues and little else in the way of qualifications.

Now I know which side most of us Rovers fans would lean on this one but if you are enforcing it as a rule and trying to be neutral it becomes much more difficult, and that's just one example.

[SydneyRover]

No, not in an equal society! We can all state individual instances, what about a disabled Police society or a blin Police society, with refernce to the blind man tasered the other week, its wrong if you want a multiracial society!

FYI, and to prove your point spectacularly wrong, The Disabled Police Association exists:

http://www.disabledpolice.info/

Do you think this is discriminating against those who are able bodied?

For the ridiculous claim that this is fighting discrimination with discrimination...I honestly feel like banging my head against a wall with this one.

Firstly, how you can equate the discrimination of singling out another player for abuse based on the colour of their skin versus the "discrimination" of setting up an advocacy group for a minority which has been repeatedly subject to discrimination in football is beyond me.

Secondly, I am sure that white footballers who wanted to join this association as a means of solidarity could still do so in some way shape or form. The Black Police Association still welcomes white policeman who want to show support for the cause to join as associate members.

every culture has had slavery, but for some reason its the worst of the worst because they were black.? How about the the aztecs, inka´s or my forefathers the vikings.? the vikings went on a little trip, had a great time raping, killing and torturing the brits, do you hate me because of that.?

And the bizzare points still continue.

The difference is that what the Incas and the Vikings did have very little relevance in todays world.

Whereas both the overt and institutionalised racism against certain minorities (but let's say Afro-Caribbean minorities for the purposes of this argument) still continue to this current day.

Did the actions of the Aztecs and the Incas cause the murder investigation of an innocent teenager to be willfully mismanaged due to prejudices against the race of that teenager within the police force?

What about black players being routinely abused in Eastern European and Russian football matches?

Racism isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be, but comparing things that still happen today it with things that happened thousands of years ago is foolish in the extreme.

[greco]

I was wrong when I said UEFA, it was Blatter that said there is no racism. John Terry received a 4 match ban for a racist remark (whether you think it was or not, he was found guilty of it) that would have seen me sacked, not put on paid sabbatical and fined the equivalent of a week's wage.

FIFA and UEFA don't give a toss about racism or any form of prejudice. If they did then Poland & Ukraine wouldn't have got the Euros and Qatar certainly wouldn't have got the World Cup. It's all about spreading football around the globe and ultimately; money, money, money.

And I live in the same global community that you do, one that allows me to be in the same discussion as somebody from Australia.

should you aussies be allowed to participate in any sporting event, considering the way the aboriginies have been treated.? I´ll bet my sorry ass bank account, that there is still some aussies who continue to treat them as kean, so i guess with the pure mind you have, you are trying to force your own nation into giving up sports in general, until the records are set straight.?

You live in lala land dude.! If every nation, should be suspended because of a minority who cant behave, there wouldnt be nations eligible to participate in any event, EVER:

Again, it's not up to you to decide it's irrelevant. And this has nothing to do with blame etc. Nobody is saying the white man is evil. I just don't understand this selfish attitude that a group that they aren't allowed to be a part of must be against them.

you are advocating that its not the same, when being called white trash as it is being called black kean, thus you are straight up advocating pure hypocrisy and trying to make one remark more racist then the other.The reason you completely disregard anykind of logical thinking in this area, is emotions buddy and those emotions are blame-related and your conscience. You´ve been told or taught, not in these exact words though, " that the white man was evil, the new generation must pay, the black man was a victim and as such the new generation can demand special treatment", otherwise you wouldnt advocate hypocrisy. .

just read braddock posts with the 6 rules, there is already one where they are asking for prefernetial treatment, the affirmative action laws in the states are one of those aswell, so its racism being fought with racism and that should create equality.?

Oh and you can't compare something that is happening now (albeit far less than 50 or so years ago) to something that happened centuries and centuries ago. If you need that explaining then I give up.

you wrote an essay about how blacks were treated as dogs and were slaves, i pointed out, that all races and colours have taken that path, it was my way od saying what you wrote was irrelevant.

Would you be offended if someone called you a white piece of s***? It doesn't have the same connotations as it does for black people. The white man still has the vast majority of the money and the power.

the white man has the money and power, thanks for proving my point about how the white an is being portrayed as evil.. Is he bald, has a cat and puts his pinky to his mouth whenever he says something evil.?

ohh and by the way, im not white mate, i wouldnt say im brown either, but my mother was danish and my father was from greece, i look like a man from the southern parts of europe, so calling me a white piece of kean, would be rather pointless

racism is racism, how much im offended is not the point, its completely irrelevant mate. Are you sure you want equality.? to me it seems more like you want to give one race preferencial treatment, based on historical events.

[braddock]

its not nonsense, the underlying theme, is what is the determing factor braddock. If a race are being given preferencial treatment because of past mistakes, thats not unity, thats racism, so in essense racism is being fought with racism. Learn from the past, yes, live in it, no.

You have to bare in mind I've not spoken about the Black Players Association throughout this thread, I was responding to the ignorant tone of the opening post on surrounding issues.

The things that I have discussed have no preferential treatment in them. Positive racism is not something people who want equality want and is of course something to be avoided. But as I have said, there is no shame in evening up social inequalities when it comes to access to opportunity.

We are living in times were racism happens. Certainly not as much as it used to, but it's still there in some areas.

are you saying that blacks, asians or hispanics l, do not have the same rights as white people in britain.?

I'm saying many do not have the same access to opportunity as many white people in the country.

Out of interest, do you agree with the Rooney Rule?

On the surface I'm not sure I agree with it as I'm not sure how it would make a significant change as people can interview people then reject their application, so racists would just do that, plus it could have the effect where somebody more qualified misses out on an interview because they do not have the advantage of qualifying for this Rooney Rule but I know far too little about it to have a proper opinion and don't have time this very moment to form one that I would be happy enough to make sweeping statements about.

There is a long winded flipside in that it could demand integration in many people's lives with the few that get the job simply because they qualified for the Rooney Rule, got the job but wouldn't have made the interview otherwise, but it's far too complex for me to go into and I don't know enough about it.

Apologies for not being able to give an answer.

Just a point to everyone, I'm not in support of the Black Players Association or this new 6 point thing that I linked to before (I was only linking to it as it just made the news and was relevant) and nor am I against them. I haven't looked into it enough yet. I've been talking about other things here.

[rightrover]

If there can be "no mitigating circumstances" in calling a black man "black" then this shows how far the race industry is massively over-reaching itself. There are potentially mitigating circumstances in all sorts of more serious crimes, even murder, but not, apparently, when hurling an insult back to a millionaire footballer who is also insulting you in the worst way he can think of. It's nonsense, certainly not what I'd call "racial abuse."

In the context of a football field, it was simply mutual winding up the opposition to gain an advantage, much like boxers do to each other prior to a fight. Afterwards, it's all hugs and kisses.

The proposal to form a black union will certainly wake up some idiotic people into realising that while it is frowned upon, if not downright illegal for whites to think ethnocentrically, every other race does.

[Tom]

After reading this I still can't work out why anyone would have a genuine issue with this.

[Salgado Is A Hero]

After reading this I still can't work out why anyone would have a genuine issue with this.

With a Black players association? Because it highlights the notion that apparently there is a difference between white and black people. And kids will see it and think there is a difference between white and black people.

When there isn't and they should be taught that there isn't.

[Mike E]

1. the process should never be "speeded up", there needs to be a thorough investigation into events, before making any kind of judgement.

2 & 6. verbal abuse, in the heat of the moment, should not be punished harder, then leg breaking tackles , also in the heat of the moment. Physical violence should always be punished harder then verbal abuse. Thats how it is on society and so it should be in football.

3 & 4. Just as i thought, this is all about gaining power and looking for preferential treatment.

5. plain out lunacy.

Your comment on number 5 shows how out of touch you are. As mentioned in my earlier post, racist abuse usually results in a straight sacking. In football, I would go further and ban the offending player from competing professionally in this country again (if only to make the point).

[Kelbo]

FYI, and to prove your point spectacularly wrong, The Disabled Police Association exists:

http://www.disabledpolice.info/

My mistake, when my father was in the force it didnt exist, knew it had to be quite recent!!

Founded July 2012 and now removed from charitable status!

[Tom]

With a Black players association? Because it highlights the notion that apparently there is a difference between white and black people. And kids will see it and think there is a difference between white and black people.

When there isn't and they should be taught that there isn't.

But when a group has been Targeted historically and even recently and they don't feel the current bodies are doing enough should they not have the right to form a group to speak up for them?

[XLM]

should you aussies be allowed to participate in any sporting event, considering the way the aboriginies have been treated.? I´ll bet my sorry ass bank account, that there is still some aussies who continue to treat them as kean, so i guess with the pure mind you have, you are trying to force your own nation into giving up sports in general, until the records are set straight.?

I think you're confusing me with someone else, I'm from Lancashire. But yes the way the aborigines were/are treated was/is appalling, but it's not something I know much about and is barely relevant.

You live in lala land dude.! If every nation, should be suspended because of a minority who cant behave, there wouldnt be nations eligible to participate in any event, EVER:

It depends on the size of the minority and how likely it is to spill over to the event. And as for Qatar; homosexuality is, for all intents and purposes, illegal. Giving them the world cup is a massive f** you to equality.

you are advocating that its not the same, when being called white trash as it is being called black kean, thus you are straight up advocating pure hypocrisy and trying to make one remark more racist then the other.The reason you completely disregard anykind of logical thinking in this area, is emotions buddy and those emotions are blame-related and your conscience. You´ve been told or taught, not in these exact words though, " that the white man was evil, the new generation must pay, the black man was a victim and as such the new generation can demand special treatment", otherwise you wouldnt advocate hypocrisy. .

Again, it has nothing to do with blame. Not for what has been done in the past, but about stopping what is happening now. As it goes, in my time in education I didn't really learn much about slavery. Basically, just that it happened.

The insult in being called white trash is the "trash" part, the insult in being called a "black c***" is both words because the word black is being used as a derogatory term because some people still see it as something that makes a person inferior. There may be places in the world where being white makes someone inferior. And if there is then the same goes the other way.

just read braddock posts with the 6 rules, there is already one where they are asking for prefernetial treatment, the affirmative action laws in the states are one of those aswell, so its racism being fought with racism and that should create equality.?

That's looking at racism in too simple a way, ideally nobody would even consider the colour of someone's skin, but there is still enough racism in the world to mean there is a need to have organisations in place to tackle it. Eventually it would sort itself out if we didn't have any black organisations, but why should black people have to leave it to run its course?

you wrote an essay about how blacks were treated as dogs and were slaves, i pointed out, that all races and colours have taken that path, it was my way od saying what you wrote was irrelevant.

When language is still used that shows no respect for what people's grandparents or whoever have gone through it is relevant. You're talking like it stopped centuries ago. Rosa Parks' famous stand on the bus was only around 60 years ago and the "I have a dream" speech only about 50.

the white man has the money and power, thanks for proving my point about how the white an is being portrayed as evil.. Is he bald, has a cat and puts his pinky to his mouth whenever he says something evil.?

I never said that makes the white man evil. Hell, I am a white man. I'm not saying all white people are racist, I'm not saying white people should be made to pay for what has happened in the past, I'm saying that there is still an attitude amongst some that black people are inferior which needs to change now.

racism is racism, how much im offended is not the point, its completely irrelevant mate. Are you sure you want equality.? to me it seems more like you want to give one race preferencial treatment, based on historical events.

It's not preferential treatment, racism affects black people far, far, far more than than whites because of the very recent history that goes with it.

[braddock]

There is the idea that having something that is open to everyone simply means everyone will join for PR reasons, even if they don't subscribe to the real reasons behind the movement in the first place thus watering down the intended message. So therefore making a group to kick racism out of football may have it's limitations (it will raise awareness but will all members be genuinely behind the cause if not being in the group makes them look bad) as we have seen, also in the same way that players do the handshake before the game but it doesn't necessarily mean that they hold any form of respect for their opponent. I'm not saying that idea is correct but it's interesting.

[thenodrog]

Racism isn't anywhere near as bad as it used to be, but comparing things that still happen today it with things that happened thousands of years ago is foolish in the extreme.

Thousands of years? Now that really is foolish. There is about a century between the spaniards conquering the Inca's and the first black slaves hitting the US.

[thenodrog]

It's not preferential treatment, racism affects black people far, far, far more than than whites because of the very recent history that goes with it.

Really? How about the racism which killed 6 million white people in a most horrific manner in the late 30's and 40's? Is that recent enough?

btw Rem Precious McKenzie the superb little GB weightlifter in the 70's? I suggest that Precious might become the most popular name amongst our black community soon.

[Lathund]

I like these threads. Really helps you decipher how the reasoning of some posters work outside of a football equation. Which sometimes explains their reasoning in a football equation.

It is enlightening indeed. Reading the ICBINF section can have the same effect.

are you saying that blacks, asians or hispanics l, do not have the same rights as white people in britain.?

I'm fairly certain he's not saying that, as that would be incorrect. But surely you realise that that's not the same thing as them not being discriminated against in reality?

[Salgado Is A Hero]

But when a group has been Targeted historically and even recently and they don't feel the current bodies are doing enough should they not have the right to form a group to speak up for them?

Yes I believe they do have the right.....but I feel it would just emphasise the (wrong) idea that black and white people are different.....I agree with Morgan Freeman......don't talk about it.....there will always be a minority of idiots.....people should be taught we are all equal.....having separate groups for races will not achieve this, even if there is apparent justification for doing so.

[booth]

When I saw the title for this I thought Eric had stepped up.

[greco]

'XLM'

I think you're confusing me with someone else, I'm from Lancashire. But yes the way the aborigines were/are treated was/is appalling, but it's not something I know much about and is barely relevant.

my bad, dont know why i thought you were from australia, but the point still stands. the point i made could be made for any given country.

It depends on the size of the minority and how likely it is to spill over to the event. And as for Qatar; homosexuality is, for all intents and purposes, illegal. Giving them the world cup is a massive f** you to equality.

are you seriously saying, that laws in other countrues should be a deciding factor, when it comes to arranging sporting events.? How about we stop doing business with china and india, stop buying oil from the middle east russia, oh and while we are at it, refuse any country in the world entrence into any event, until they´ve reached a point where you say its okay.?

what you are proposing its completely unrealistic and doesnt make sense. Unless you want to be - out of this world hypothetical - and discuss la la land.

The insult in being called white trash is the "trash" part, the insult in being called a "black c***" is both words because the word black is being used as a derogatory term because some people still see it as something that makes a person inferior. There may be places in the world where being white makes someone inferior. And if there is then the same goes the other way.

this is just nonsense, complete and utter nonsense. A racist is a racist and racism is racims, it doesnt matter what colour the perpetrator is.

That's looking at racism in too simple a way, ideally nobody would even consider the colour of someone's skin, but there is still enough racism in the world to mean there is a need to have organisations in place to tackle it. Eventually it would sort itself out if we didn't have any black organisations, but why should black people have to leave it to run its course?

im glad we have you to define whats too simple regarding racism and whats not. Run its course you say, im baffled by that comment. there isnt a nation in the western parts of europe, thas hasnt taken giant steps in the fight against racism. Its on teh agenda everyday and is being combatted on a daily basis aswell.

so one race gets preferential treatment, just because they have a certain skin colour and you dont call that racism.?

its a slippery slope, im not saying this is going to happen, but what if asians and hispanics were to do the same, then we´d have groups based on etnicity, fighting for their rights and based purely on their skin colour.

When language is still used that shows no respect for what people's grandparents or whoever have gone through it is relevant. You're talking like it stopped centuries ago. Rosa Parks' famous stand on the bus was only around 60 years ago and the "I have a dream" speech only about 50.

when is the line drawn, 50? 100 or 150.? which events are to be counted in this equation.? my country was invaded by the nazis, during a heated exchange of words, could i call a german a keaning nazi and if so, would it be okay for him/her to call me white flag waving kean, as my nation surrendered.? or would that make the german insult worse, becaue of the history.?

you previously said that my view on racism was too simple, i think yours is too complicated.

I never said that makes the white man evil. Hell, I am a white man. I'm not saying all white people are racist, I'm not saying white people should be made to pay for what has happened in the past, I'm saying that there is still an attitude amongst some that black people are inferior which needs to change now.

racism happens to every race, its just a question about which country you are living in or looking at.

It's not preferential treatment, racism affects black people far, far, far more than than whites because of the very recent history that goes with it.

its not only a question about white and black, but other ethnic groups as well.

It doesnt need to be about racism only, we could end up with a scenario where one player says he will anally rape another players children and the other player would say some about race and then what.?

You want to make a huge deal out of it, but ironically, we have a coloured man in morgan freeman, who has the exact opposite pov.

[braddock]

Yes I believe they do have the right.....but I feel it would just emphasise the (wrong) idea that black and white people are different.....I agree with Morgan Freeman......don't talk about it.....there will always be a minority of idiots.....people should be taught we are all equal.....having separate groups for races will not achieve this, even if there is apparent justification for doing so.

Except there were plenty of people who didn't speak out when it was prevalent and it continued until proper stands were made. Then it's been a gradual improvement as the challenges have been put up against racism. Going quiet about it wouldn't be the best idea in my opinion.

I take your point about separation groups, though I'm not exactly sold on it. Has positives and negatives.

[SydneyRover]

Yes I believe they do have the right.....but I feel it would just emphasise the (wrong) idea that black and white people are different.....I agree with Morgan Freeman......don't talk about it.....there will always be a minority of idiots.....people should be taught we are all equal.....having separate groups for races will not achieve this, even if there is apparent justification for doing so.

I am pretty sure you are taking Morgan Freeman's words out of context and I very much doubt he would agree with you in this regard.

No one would talk about it were there not a spate of racist incidents in the game recently. In fact for years we all thought racism had been stamped out of football pretty much. However there has been, both by other footballers and by football fans in other countries.

By your logic we should stand by and let that happen, rather than talk about it and find a way of making sure it doesn't happen again.

Is gay pride a bad thing because it highlights the difference between gay and straight, or is it a good thing because homosexuals who have a history of being persecuted in society get to show some solidarity with each other for one day a year? Is having a Disabled Police Association bad because it highlights the difference between able bodied and disabled, or is it good because it helps to look after the interests of a group often patronised and discriminated against?

How is the Black Footballers' Association any different from these examples? Especially if white footballers are allowed to join if they wish to show support (which I suspect they would be).

[braddock]

They'll be wanting to ban the Paralympics next.