or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 45 comments are related to an article called:

from an honest united fan on th ban fiasco

Page 2 of 2

posted on 21/12/11

comment by Rusty6899 (U7079)

I would say that racial abuse falls outside of this bracket though, as there is extensive historical evidence of racism being used in state enforced discrimination within most western countries, meaning that the social implications of racial abuse can easily be tied to the barbaric ideologies of previous centuries (decades in some cases).

-----



Thanks Rusty, that's EXACTLY the point I was making.

comment by ben (U1532)

posted on 21/12/11

even if hair colour and race was the same with regards to comment. Would you expect to be able to go up to a stranger and make a negative comment about their hair colour? if anything this only further highlights the importance of context

posted on 21/12/11

So you think that we should treat them differently because one is more heavily documented in history ?

posted on 21/12/11

heavily documented

-----

Strange to focus on this particular aspect, but yeah, OK …

comment by Hodgey (U1271)

posted on 21/12/11

Metro the argument you are trying to put forward is such a weak, if not non-existent, one. Since when did gingers get discriminated against throughout history to the extent of which black people have? Ginger slave? I thought not.

posted on 21/12/11

Firstly ginger people are not a race, the same rule would have to apply to blonde and brunette people as well, so calling someone "carrott top" for example isn't racist, because they're not a race of people. Secondly, racism against black people carries historical weight, in terms of slavary, oppression and civil rights, the word n***** relates directly to slavery and the abuse that black people suffered.

When people tr yand compare the two topics it is just insulting if i'm being honest, ginger jokes are a weird social phenomena that has happened over the past couple of decades the other is a an atrocious assault on a race of people and their basic human rights.

posted on 21/12/11

Ancient Egyptians were said to have buried redheaded men alive and in medieval times, red hair was associated with moral degradation and intense sexual desire. Redheads were even regarded as vampires, werewolves and witches. During the Spanish Inquisition red heads were singled out for persecution, believing their hair to be sure sign that they stole the fires of hell.

posted on 21/12/11

If these accusations are true he should have been banned for the rest of the season. We have worked so hard here to kick racism out of football. The FA should make a big statement and ban him for the rest of the season.

If Toure could get banned for 6 months for accidentally taking his wife pills, then why shouldn’t Saurez get a longer ban?

BTW if John Terry is considered guilty by the FA he should also get the same punishment.

posted on 21/12/11

^
Says someone with Terry in his name

posted on 21/12/11

and what if I have his name in my username

posted on 21/12/11

comment by redconn > (U5676)

But while the Age of Enlightenment all but ended the superstition-based discrimination against gingers, racial discriminatory legislation persevered in first world countries well into the 20th Century, and a significant minority of people hold racist views today.

Ask any of the level headed love-children of Ronald McDonald and most of them will be fairly apathetic to slurs against them. We got a bit of banter for it in school, but no one really bothers about it after then. Whereas you have ignorant bigots who actually still spout the rubbish that lead to centuries of slavery and inequality against black people.

comment by ben (U1532)

posted on 21/12/11

i think if someone came out and straight out intended to racially abuse someone then yes a season ban would be apt, but it would seem that this case is a lot more complex than that.

the terry situation is also now even more interesting. If they give him a smaller ban then surely things will be even worse for them, but if they give him a massive ban it doesnt look good from an england point of view either

posted on 21/12/11

In relation to slavery; if facts must be known people with 'black skin' where orginally responsible for the actions to the word known as 'slavery'.

posted on 21/12/11

To be fair i dont believe that Suarez can claim any innocence no matter what his culture. You come to England, you get paid a shed load of money, you shouldnt have to be told not to make a silly comment that could land you in trouble, racist or not.

Your right about Evra, even as a City fan I can say that if he feels injustice was said against him then he should speak out as should any player in the league.

That said there isn't that much evidence that has been portrayed to the media but if the FA have given an 8 match ban I can only assume they have pretty conclusive evidence, as I don't believe even the FA would hand out an 8 match ban just on Evra's word

posted on 21/12/11

The simple fact is Suarez will think twice in future before he opens his stupid mouth!!

comment by MBL. (U6305)

posted on 21/12/11

Ginger people were not sold into slavery you moron, seriously is that the argument you would use that to call someone ginger is in any way equal to a racist comment because you are trying to defend one of your football teams player, is that what your trying to do?

If so your a despicable person, you should educate yourself
On the difference.

posted on 21/12/11

Liverpool fan ANFIELD RAP has written a wonderful post on this:

http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/67525

posted on 21/12/11

Good, sensible article.

As a 'white' who's always lived in 'white' societies, I have never felt racial discrimination, but I think I understand how a member of a racial minority might feel because I have been insulted on the basis of nationality and also on (perceived) religious grounds - ironic really, as I'm an atheist...

Perhaps the ginger debate isn't the best one, but to this day, people around the world are discriminated and/or persecuted on the basis of ethnicity, religion or nationality. Cases of state-organised ethnic/religious cleansing are in fact even more recent in Europe than a European nation actively persecuting a particular race.

This brings me round to asking why issues of race are considered more serious than discrimination on other grounds related to someone's heritage. It seems to me that only one part of the problem is being addressed as if it were the whole.

comment by RB&W (U2335)

posted on 21/12/11

don't blondes get more stick than red heads, anyway?

Red heads are feisty and determined.

Blondes are dizzy and thick.


posted on 21/12/11

Yes, Blondes definatley get more Stick!

Page 2 of 2

Sign in if you want to comment