Racism in sport

I posted this on the FoF board, but someone didn't like it so it got locked. I'm proud of the NBA. I wish more action would be taken against racism...

We have all heard about and maybe even witnessed racism in the sport we all love. We have seen some very half measures to tackle it (no pun intended). Here in the States we have an owner of a NBA team who decided to air his bigoted ideas and got kicked out of basketball for it. Granted this was from an owner and not a fan, but can you imagine if a club was punished in a same manner for its fans actions? Harsh for the vastly overwhelming fans that do not harbor such asinine ideas, but maybe it would go to show that FIFA is serious about stopping racism from invading the beautiful game.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nba-donald-ste ... d=23513899

Link for those interested.



Cheers,

Steve

COYW!!!!

 

It's interesting, isn't it? The dichotomy of how one sports institution, the NBA, deals with an incident of racism as opposed to FIFA and, more specifically, UEFA. The still wet behind the ears commissioner brings the hammer down in short, swift order on a Neanderthal owner while the boys in Zurich and Nyon sat on their hands while the FA gave Luis Suarez an 8 match ban for verbally racially abusing Patrice Evra. The rest of Señor Suarez's misdeeds, including snubbing Evra during pregame handshakes at their next match and biting opposing players on separate occasions in different leagues, are well documented. Yet he escapes with a slap on the wrist and continues on his merry way to glory and stardom, making a mockery of the high profile "Say No To Racism" and " Respect" campaigns. They should have acted decisively and forcefully like Mr. Silver did, and suspended him from all professional club and international soccer for a year in the prime of his career. Pre match banners and shoulder patches are no substitute for immediate, incisive action. Messrs. Blatter and Platini should take heed and follow suit when the next idiot shows his arse.

 

Will never happen. FIFA and UEFA stand for NOTHING other than money. PSG and Man City have been found in violation of Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules and reportedly their punishment will be fines. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That'll stop 'em.

All I can say is if MLS lets Man City sidestep the salary cap and DP rules, I will be one unhappy camper and boycott MLS - as if that will be difficult.

 

It's quite a bit different legislating one league in one country than what FIFA/UEFA have to manage. That's not necessarily a defense of them though. FIFA is as corrupt as they come.

Policing fan actions is a slippery slope. Is it possible for a die hard Laker fan (or group of fans) to buy some Clipper tickets, don some of their gear and then go do something that gets them in trouble? I think you have to police fans on an individual basis, regardless of the numbers involved in the problem. Unlike US pro sports teams, European clubs usually aren't in charge of their stadium security. As such, I'd have a hard time holding them responsible for the failures of the local police.

 

Steve I think you should go back and read the NBA thread some more. The NBA has nothing to be proud of. I wish people would apply a little critical analysis to the BACKGROUND of hot topics..
suspend your PC outrage and consider this:
The fan who recently threw the banana may not be a racist at all. He may have been acting as a lone Uber Fan. What do Uber Fans do? They do anything thta will give their team an edge. Such as trying to rattle the stars of the opponent. How better than to throw PC aside?

So.. what Dani Alves did was to act like an BIG BOY adult. And no doubt made the fan fell like an idiot. We dont know whether the fan laughed about that or not. If he did, he aint racist is he?

 

Hey pettyfog. I did not want to bring up any one instance from the world of FIFA/FA/UEFA as a point of reference. It is too easy to say, well in this instance... However, there have been plenty of evidence of "monkey calls" and other abusive behavior from fans and if that is "rattling the opponent", I don't want to be associated with a sport that condones that. And, yes, the NBA has known for quite a while about this behavior, but at least they finally took the first step. I am proud that finally someone has moved in the right direction.

Cheers,

Steve

And, by the way, thank you for insinuating I don't apply critical thought to my topics. You might want to get to know me first there buddy...

 

Really? You took that personal... Why? We all do skip over logic when making belief statements.
Look... I am not saying racism doesnt exist, it certainly does and anyone says otherwise is a fool. What I object to is painting each and every incident and anecdote in the same color.
The point in using the Banana - Dani episode is how the media treated it... as if it was confirmed the fan acted out of a racist attitude without considering the possibility of otherwise. This is not the same as has happened in Spain or Italy.

I'm a bigot {not necessarily about race}.. many of my life views are colored by that. which is to say i Have to examine what I say in view of that. Let me ask.. have you been in situations where you feel the cold chill of bigotry? I have quite a few times, but then I'm seventy.
When that happens do you take it personally or do you feel it's unfair or just a sad fact. If you dont accept that could be the case, how about we parse some Tyler Perry or Spike Lee scripts.

I hate to have to keep pointing this out.. EVERYONE has their bigotries. It''s the human condition. Ooppsss. It's the SOCIAL Animal condition.
Here's something related.. 'I wonder if Jane Goodall is a feminist'.
Hope you get my drift there.
Lol

 

Aggie-

I agree that the one league versus the world poses different challenges. And the differences among cultures would make things even more problematic. As for the donning of other teams jerseys...You have a point. But I think that there are instances that go beyond the individual fan. Zenit fans come to mind. It has been a couple of years now, but the Ultra's of Zenit did want to exclude all non-white and gay players from their team. http://www.newser.com/story/159564/russian-soccer-fans-demand-all-white-team.html That level of racism rises above the Clippers fan in a Lakers jersey. Is it easy, no. None of us has the right answer and the world is filled with biases and bigotry, but to allow this behavior to continue doesn't seem right to me.

PettyFog-

No offense taken, just an invitation to get to know me before you pass judgement on whether or not I think critically about a topic before I post it. Again, my post was about a single instance with overwhelming evidence of racism and my thought that finally a league got it right. Yes, Sterling was the NBA's worst kept secret, but they finally acted. I never implied a "one size fits all approach" to dealing with it. And to answer your question, yes I have felt it. Sad thing is I feel more of it here in Toronto than anywhere else I have ever been. As to the Italy situation, here is an article I found very interesting last year. I find it sad, even as I reread it today... http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/9338962/when-beautiful-game-turns-ugly

Cheers,

Steve

 

Okay.. I'm still not getting through. Let's start with Sport reflects its Society. And Society in itself does not reflect the view of a single individual but a collection of like minded individuals who may not agree on all viewpoints but find commonality in a cause.

Being a fan of a team does not reflect anything but the focus of the group. Politics, Humanistic traits, religion etc do not matter, in concept. {Well, except maybe like Rangers Celtics}.
BUT.. when the society from where they are drawn is caught up in outside influences/traits of bigotry and racism, THEN legislating the morality within the sub-group will not work.
All that will happen is to INCREASE the resentment (bigotry) and fear (racism) on which they are based. That is simple human nature, is it not?!
The world of 'Should be' and 'how things are and have been forever' demands understanding the core natures of humanity and existence. Which is survival and proliferation of your own group. Anthropological history points this out...sadly it has been sublimated by those who believe that simply saying we are 'of a higher order', therefore Darwin no longer counts. Well, that in turn generates a hubris that supposes more conformity of morality/thought is the answer. That's why I brought up 'Is Jane Goodall a feminist?' When you consider the scope and focus of her life's work, if she is a feminist, that is VERY MUCH full of irony.
Ironically, most 'tolerance memes' are built on the soft bigotry of low expectation. Which is why those who proclaim against lack of tolerance are only willing to tolerate that which they feel they are superior to, and can safely subdue at will or some time in the future. When you -rhetorically- feel threatened by concepts you despise, tolerance and sometimes reason itself goes out the door.
This is best illustrated by news reports on social conditions within the countries themselves.

So when I say to consider events and anecdotes logically that is a rhetorical device, Taking things personal doesnt help, it only illustrates the problem.

One final point on acceptance/tolerance:
Oddball Animal Friendships
What starts out as pointing out fun scientific fact ends up loaded with self-projection, ignorance and absurdity. Based on how the writer {and commenters: who are the worst examples of ignoramuses you could want to find} see the situations, I just want to scream.
- Lion Tiger Bear bonding had little to do with them being neglected. Writer wanted to make different point. The very next fun thing, Dog / Cheetah refutes it.
- Anyone knows a damn thing about wildlife knows you dont pick up a fox kit, UNLESS you actually see the dead Fox Mama nearby. Guy who did that might be forgiven, animal lover writer should know better than to let that slide.

See what I'm doing there? When you remove the human element by half a layer, things change.

 

Pettyfog...It must be me that is not getting through...I have yet to take anything personally. All I have done is invite you to know me before passing judgement. I have not called you to task once, nor have I taken offense to anything you have said.

I totally agree that you cannot legislate morality in the true sense of the word, "legislate" as in make or enact laws. I do believe that you can punitively act against a subset of society to change the acceptable cultural norms. We do it everyday. Unacceptable behavior in children is punished and acceptable is praised. You see it in international relations where sanctions are put in against countries who do not act within the acceptable norms (us excluded at times...). By accepting actions that are outside the social norms, they only reinforce those actions. Maybe another way to say it is the idealists of today become the realists of tomorrow.

So yes, I think you can shift the acceptable norms by punitive actions against the unacceptable behavior. Does this lead to resentment, maybe. But does losing a stand full of bigots from a football match help to shape acceptable behavior in football in the long run...I'd say yes. And as I have already said, this is not a one size fits all approach, but when the evidence is overwhelming, take action. Or appease to the basest of instinct and behavior and accept that you will reap what you sow.

Cheers,

Steve

 

So let me just make sure I have this straight. You suggest that anti-social behavior be modified by enacting codes of conduct under punitive force of law?

Who is it determines what that unacceptable behavior is? I know some believe that those who protest against the AGW scam should be tried and punished in some way. So I guess thta falls within the frame.

 

I am not up on the AGW scam, so I cannot speak on that aspect. Sorry. But yes, society has set out social norms and we hold people to them every day. Robbing a liquor store is anti-social. If you conduct such an action, society has deemed that worthy of punitive punishment. The United States has deemed it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex,religion, race or sexual orientation when applying for government jobs. To do so is met with punitive actions. As to who sets the norms, even as a realist I accept the fact that there is a social order above that of the state. Even with all it's imperfections, it exists. So, to ignor the fact that certain actions are not acceptable within the greater society is dilusional. Are these norms applied equally? No. Thus the imperfection of an order over that of the state. Are anti- social norms specific to individual cultures. You bet. But are there global norms? Yes, and when they are ignored or violated, there is a punitive response. I cannot think of a state that condones murder of its civilian population. Justice May not look the same, but actions are taken to ensure the norms are respected. But to who sets the norms on discrimination, I'd check out what the world said about it here:

2 . International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
New York, 7 March 1966


I'm not a big UN fan, but when you have 177 signatories it is something worth reading. Most important are the stipulations under which countries signed.

Are you saying that anti-social behavior is acceptable and should not be met with some sort of punitive response? I don't think that is what you are saying, but the way in which you ask the question makes me ask. Without social norms, humanity would struggle to get through one generation. As you said, it's human nature...

Cheers,

Steve

 

Steve, you illustrate my point exactly.
In cases such as the Firefox / Brandon Eich thing, the fact that Eich merely donated to Prop 8 got him hounded out of his CEO position by a minority of employees even though they sorely needed his expertise. There was no claim he tried to impress his views on the company.
When this was pointed out, the PC bunch claimed it was not suppression of speech/belief because the government had no involvement. And thta is true. He was exiled by his peers which I believe is the extreme limits on how far that should go. Never mind they showed their own bigotry.

It was the final straw for me and I dumped Firefox and wont go back. It had turned into bloated crap anyway. Hope some of those idiots are happy their views on how everyone should think is worth their jobs. And if you think there was solidarity on THAT, you got another think coming... Even many Gay libs thought that was outrageous and called it dangerous. I'm not gonna list them but you could start with Andrew Sullivan.

But YOU claim the governemnt SHOULD be involved. Which is exactly my point. That's known as a slippery slope {actually it's a cliff for the storied lemmings of yore} and I find it hard to believe a rational adult can think that way. It is VERY short sighted.

"First they came for the Communists and I was not a Communist, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Jews and I was not a Jew.."
- Martin Niemoller
Well, we've seen our own version of that with McCarthyism which seemed like a good idea to some but ended up with the putrid Hollywood Blacklist.

What happens when they come for you?
What about the Westboro Baptists... Should there be a law they should be thrown in jail? Well imagine that it happened, what would you say if some gay orgs showed up picketing on their behalf? That very well COULD happen.

And hey... How about you go through a list of those 177 UN signatories and look up THEIR human rights ratings?!!! Why do you seem to have double standards? And sorry, you dont get to say you've never been all-in with the UN, this issue is the only one that counts and it's an atrocity.

 

if MLS lets Man City-owned New York FC get away with coming up with creative ways to sidestep the DP and salary cap rules, which you know they will try to do, I will be pretty teed off.

 

Fun to read? No. Funny? Yeah.

 

Matt! I was engaging in this debate in hopes of earning your undying respect!!!! :banana-guitar:

Cheers,

Steve

 

Pettyfog-

I am afraid I am unable to keep up with some of your more esoteric arguments, so if I miss some of your more salient points, please accept this as a failing on my side.

I just read about Brendan Eich and Prop 8, so realize I have little details to the situation and am thus making a fairly hollow argument based on his story. However, in an effort to answer your argument here it goes...The United States was based on a Judeo-Christian foundation. In this tradition, which is deeply rooted in our cultural norms, marriage is between a man and a woman. These norms are beginning to shift. Again it goes back to idealists of today are realists of tomorrow. As these norms shift, there will be opposition to what people rightly see as an erosion of their core beliefs. If there is enough support for the new norms, or if it is placed in positions of power or influence, the social landscape will change. We have seen it in our country many times. At the founding of the United States, slavery was believed to be just. As times changed and societal norms shifted, slavery became abhorrent to a large part of the populace and after a bloody civil war, the norms changed. If the change is not accepted by the populace, the norms will revert. Prohibition is a good example of this happening. Sometimes norms change naturally and other times there is a more militant impetus that forces it.

I am not saying the government should be involved, I am telling they ARE involved. In our Republic we elect those who are supposed to represent us and our ideals in Congress. We have relegated some of our decisions as to what is and is not acceptable to them. Great thing about it is that we get the government we deserve and when we don't like their actions, we get an opportunity to vote them out. Be thankful you live in a country where you have such influence. To see it any other way is not realistic. You do not get to chose as an individual what is acceptable behavior if it is outside what we as American's have agreed to. Your argument about Senator McCarthy is a great point in history where one man tried to change the norms and the rest of the establishment did not agree. Were the lists and the rhetoric insane? Yup. Did the public and especially the Eisenhower administration see it and eventually marginalize him to the point where he became the synonym of overreaching politics...You tell me. Just another example of society setting acceptable norms.

As a military member, I am not a big fan of the Westboro gang. However, society has decided that in this case, the First Amendment trumps rounding them all up. And, I will fight/die to defend that right for them. But they are not universally accepted and there is set of society that has spoken out against them. If they continue their actions, or become even more radicalized after Phelps' death, I would not be surprised to see some of their actions restricted. I say this because there are already limits on our fundamental freedom. Don't believe me? Go into a theater and yell, "fire" or incite a riot. Our society and your government (as an extension of you) has deemed this illegal and established laws against it. Thus, the norms are established.

As I stated, you should really look at the conditions under which countries signed the anti-discrimination protocols. That is much more interesting than looking at who subjugated who. And, if you want to judge me on my UN stance, ok not a problem. I'll happily point out where they get it wrong. I'll also give them credit where they have gotten it right. Just because I am not a fan, doesn't mean I cannot accept when they do get things right. As for why I have double standards? Again, you do not know me and have no idea what I believe or think about any of these issues. I have pointed out how the world is. Can you refute any of the points I have made? If so, please do.

Cheers,

Steve

 

Okay, I'm done... You took the Brandon Eich thing and made it specific, arguing the issue of gay rights instead of freedom of expression.
Again I'll say that if the corporation wants to bend to a few loud voices of douchebaggery fine.
That means you aint NEVER gonna get it, even though you also dont get it it exactlly right on Westboro. I read Right wing/ libertarian blogs. There's NOBODY I read that does not despise Westboro .. but we dont want them penalized in their livelihood.
You completely MISSED the point of damage done by McCarthyism. It was NOT caused by government action, it was caused by special interest applying private embargo. And the government didnt STOP anything from happening. They took very few actions, other than the DOJ Alger Hiss case. In essence they outlawed nothing new, no new statutes as I recall. And McCarthy, though he may have wished to punish underground marxists at least wanted a light shined on them, that's good. If you HAVE a belief you should (be able and allowed to) state it.
Exacting vengeful punishment, for belief itself, is bad.
'Punishment' does not include those who either ridicule the belief or speak against it. It also does not include my stating that I dumped Firefox because thta was the last straw for me. I was ready to anyway because it became crap.

You say that you went in service to protect rights of expression and association and then you appear to advocate for restriction of same 'in some cases'.
I'm sorry... that does not wash with me. No matter how you word it, it's the stuff of Orwell.
BTW: the real restrictions have been codifed practically forever.