The Mail Bag
PM & FA Racism Meeting
100 Comments: I see that David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt the Culture Secretary met members of the Football Association to discuss racism and homophobia in football.
I think most fans want both eliminated not just from football, although how you regulate to acheive this is another matter.
They also discussed how to promote more black managers. I know that in America they have whats called the Rooney law which states that all coaching opportunities must have at least one black candidate. While I believe in equal opportunities for all surely the acid test should be, to appoint the best person for the job regardless of colour or sex.
I was listening to a discussion some months back on Goals on Sunday between Paul Ince and Les Ferdinand. Paul Ince said that he believed that not enough black ex-players bothered to do their coaching badges, so precluded themselves being appointed as managers. Whereas Les Ferdinand said he hadn't bothered to take his badges as he felt it was a waste of time.
So do people think that the best way to encourage black players to become managers is for a Rooney-type law to be introduced.
Brian Harrison, Posted 22/02/2012 at 16:01:43
Comments
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
John Barnes was on the radio in the wake of Suarezgate last week bemoaning the fact that there are so few black managers and mentioned the fact that he is one of the very few black ex-players to have managed a professional club. Well, John, if they are all as shite as you are, I'm not surprised.
Kermit would do as good a job.
And he's green.
Kermit would do as good a job.
And he's green.
I don't think race should ever be a consideration in giving someone a job, you should give it to the best person. Any law such as the one that you mention that tries to take into account a person's race is unethical.
Les Ferdinand didn't bother trying as he felt it wasn't worth it? Whose fault is that? Les Ferdinand's and no-one else's. If I'm understanding your point correctly, he's guilty of prejudice himself and seems to be using it as an excuse to avoid taking a risk and attempting something he may fail at.
Noel I'm not sure I agree with your point number one, and I definitely think that all clubs would appoint anyone, be they Black, Asian, Irish, Jewish, Muslim, female, homosexual etc. if they thought that person would help them win football matches and do the job well. That's all they really care about.
As for whether they have these subconscious feelings, there's very little sensible we can argue about as its not the sort of thing you can have evidence for either way. All we would be doing is trading 'gut feelings', and while I'd agree there probably are some people with such subconscious prejudices, they may be very few and far between, and its possible they'd be outnumbered by the number of people who'd rather appoint a Black (or Asian, Irish etc) to show that they're not racist. We have no real way of knowing or gathering evidence either way.
Les Ferdinand didn't bother trying as he felt it wasn't worth it? Whose fault is that? Les Ferdinand's and no-one else's. If I'm understanding your point correctly, he's guilty of prejudice himself and seems to be using it as an excuse to avoid taking a risk and attempting something he may fail at.
Noel I'm not sure I agree with your point number one, and I definitely think that all clubs would appoint anyone, be they Black, Asian, Irish, Jewish, Muslim, female, homosexual etc. if they thought that person would help them win football matches and do the job well. That's all they really care about.
As for whether they have these subconscious feelings, there's very little sensible we can argue about as its not the sort of thing you can have evidence for either way. All we would be doing is trading 'gut feelings', and while I'd agree there probably are some people with such subconscious prejudices, they may be very few and far between, and its possible they'd be outnumbered by the number of people who'd rather appoint a Black (or Asian, Irish etc) to show that they're not racist. We have no real way of knowing or gathering evidence either way.
I'm always amazed at how few Pakistani / Indian / Muslim / Asian football players there are in UK football.
"While I believe in equal opportunities for all surely the acid test should be, to appoint the best person for the job regardless of colour or sex."
Is the most sensible and logical approach, unfortunately these aren't concepts the FA are familiar with.
"While I believe in equal opportunities for all surely the acid test should be, to appoint the best person for the job regardless of colour or sex."
Is the most sensible and logical approach, unfortunately these aren't concepts the FA are familiar with.
Ray, I thought John Barnes spoke very intelligently and sounded pretty convincing in that 5-Live interview... until I realized afterwards that I did not recall him mentioning even once the fact that he had been given the opportunity in management at one of the biggest clubs in the UK and had failed so badly.
Kinda puts a different gloss on things. I don't believe any form of quota legislation or so-called positive discrimination is appropriate in this case... and Ferdinand wants calling out for that ridiculous attitude. He is being inherently racist (and lazy!) and is just ensuring the problem (if there really is one) endures.
Kinda puts a different gloss on things. I don't believe any form of quota legislation or so-called positive discrimination is appropriate in this case... and Ferdinand wants calling out for that ridiculous attitude. He is being inherently racist (and lazy!) and is just ensuring the problem (if there really is one) endures.
Michael, I'm fairly sure it wasn't 5-live that I was listening to. That's not a station that I favour. He was wheeled out on several stations, probably because he's black, played for the RS, has (apparently) managed a club and was prepared to be controversial in his comments... ie:- "Suarez did nothing wrong, get over it" crap.
He clearly enjoys a freeby at Anfield regularly and wants that to continue.
He clearly enjoys a freeby at Anfield regularly and wants that to continue.
Instead of moaning about it they should get on the ladder. Most people have things to overcome and glass ceilings to break through.
If they did a good job at any level they would get their rewards eventually.
If they did a good job at any level they would get their rewards eventually.
Les Ferdinand it seems to me simply made a decision we ALL make from time to time.
He took a look at a situation and thought 'no point'.
Shall I wait for an 81?
No point.
Shall I argue with someone about religion and hope to get a rational response?
No point.
Maybe I could try to persuade 'Big Fat Gypsys' that that purple doesn't go with lemon yellow.
No point.
Do you REALLY think Les is 'lazy'?
That he's just one of those people (like me) who can't be arsed doing loads of stuff because...it's too hard.
Well he COULD be I suppose.
But my guess is he's simply being realistic.
And remember, for all the talk of 'best man for the job' the statistics are damning and suggest he's spot on.
Personally, I think Noel Lynam (616) is probably very close to the truth in his first point.
He took a look at a situation and thought 'no point'.
Shall I wait for an 81?
No point.
Shall I argue with someone about religion and hope to get a rational response?
No point.
Maybe I could try to persuade 'Big Fat Gypsys' that that purple doesn't go with lemon yellow.
No point.
Do you REALLY think Les is 'lazy'?
That he's just one of those people (like me) who can't be arsed doing loads of stuff because...it's too hard.
Well he COULD be I suppose.
But my guess is he's simply being realistic.
And remember, for all the talk of 'best man for the job' the statistics are damning and suggest he's spot on.
Personally, I think Noel Lynam (616) is probably very close to the truth in his first point.
Eugene - Fair enough, we all think that we can't be arsed sometimes. Me more than anyone. But Sir Les shouldn't have said that and then moaned about a lack of opportunities. He should have either got off his arse or kept his mouth shut.
"Any law such as the one that you mention that tries to take into account a person's race is unethical."
I don't think the Rooney law is unethical, because it's not placing any conditions or quotas on who is actually hired. NFL teams are still completely free to hire who they want, the only proviso being that they include a black candidate in their interviewing process. Unlike affirmative action; which is unethical - this is a not unreasonable way of providing candidates with nothing more than the opportunity to prove to a potential employer that they're worthy of the job.
I don't think the Rooney law is unethical, because it's not placing any conditions or quotas on who is actually hired. NFL teams are still completely free to hire who they want, the only proviso being that they include a black candidate in their interviewing process. Unlike affirmative action; which is unethical - this is a not unreasonable way of providing candidates with nothing more than the opportunity to prove to a potential employer that they're worthy of the job.
I don't know why there are so few black managers. I suspect that because there has not been a successful black manager in British football it seems to be just not the thing that ex black players do. Of course this is wrong. Had John Barnes been a success I believe that things would be entirely different.
I think we have a certain stereotype of what makes a manager. Big Sam, Steve Bruce, Mick McCarthy. Why them as opposed to, say, Thierry Henry, Sol Campbell, or even our own Kevin Campbell? Is there an inherent racism, concious or not, in the established clubs? I don't know and, frankly, it's dangerous ground to be tiptoeing around in.
I think we have a certain stereotype of what makes a manager. Big Sam, Steve Bruce, Mick McCarthy. Why them as opposed to, say, Thierry Henry, Sol Campbell, or even our own Kevin Campbell? Is there an inherent racism, concious or not, in the established clubs? I don't know and, frankly, it's dangerous ground to be tiptoeing around in.
Wherever the big money is the old boy network takes over, interviews, qualifications, "best man for the job" - all that stuff goes out the window.
That network is white in this country.
It will need a black Shankly or Clough to kick the door in before progress is made.
That network is white in this country.
It will need a black Shankly or Clough to kick the door in before progress is made.
The Rooney Rule is a good one over here. But owners still hire the ones they want. Keep in mind though, we can have a Rooney Rule here because of so many black males applying for coaching/managing positions in all the major sports, bar hockey. The talent pool is there. Can't see the point of a Rooney Rule for the EPL at this time. There isn't a talent pool of candidates to justify it.
The big thing with black managers/coaches is that enough (whatever sport) get the opportunity to show blacks can be just as inept at managing as whites. That, with few exceptions (again in any sport, at any level) most managers/coaches are inter-changeable parts who don't matter.
Question is, who'll be the first black EPL manager? Then the second? After that, it'll just become routine.
The big thing with black managers/coaches is that enough (whatever sport) get the opportunity to show blacks can be just as inept at managing as whites. That, with few exceptions (again in any sport, at any level) most managers/coaches are inter-changeable parts who don't matter.
Question is, who'll be the first black EPL manager? Then the second? After that, it'll just become routine.
Mike @ 620,
That's exactly my point - by ensuring that a black candidate is interviewed, they get the opportunity to show that they are just as capable. What harm can having to interview one extra candidate do? But if they don't get to the interview stage, they don't have the chance to show this. And my suspicion is that old fashioned perceptions and prejudices at boardroom level deny them the chance to show this because they don't fit the perception of what a manager should be. You are quite right though when you say it cannot be proven either way.
Alex @ 622,
The lack of south Asians or Muslims in UK football is probably more to do with culture and traditional beliefs held within these communities where teenagers are not always encouraged to focus on sports, as it may be viewed as being to the detriment of their education. That and cricket is generally more popular with south Asians - just look at the number of current and former England international cricketers of south Asian extraction.
That's exactly my point - by ensuring that a black candidate is interviewed, they get the opportunity to show that they are just as capable. What harm can having to interview one extra candidate do? But if they don't get to the interview stage, they don't have the chance to show this. And my suspicion is that old fashioned perceptions and prejudices at boardroom level deny them the chance to show this because they don't fit the perception of what a manager should be. You are quite right though when you say it cannot be proven either way.
Alex @ 622,
The lack of south Asians or Muslims in UK football is probably more to do with culture and traditional beliefs held within these communities where teenagers are not always encouraged to focus on sports, as it may be viewed as being to the detriment of their education. That and cricket is generally more popular with south Asians - just look at the number of current and former England international cricketers of south Asian extraction.
The first thing a hopeful black/coloured coach ought to do is what most white hopefuls do and that is go in for the badge and start on the bottom rung by taking lower paid assistant to the assistant positions.
It seems to me that Ferdinand is playing the well worn Race/Victim card. As mentioned above that kind of attitude is an excuse for not trying yet still expecting sympathy.
It seems to me that Ferdinand is playing the well worn Race/Victim card. As mentioned above that kind of attitude is an excuse for not trying yet still expecting sympathy.
In my above post I use the Black/Coloured term because I am not sure which of those words is acceptable and I have no wish to cause offence.
For future reference I would appreciate knowing which of them is acceptable.
For future reference I would appreciate knowing which of them is acceptable.
They should bring in the Rooney law, it will only prove what we already know, black candidates will be filtered out at the interview stage, and we will have hardly any more black managers / coaches than we have now.
To pretend that racism or homophobia exists only in a narrow margin of decision makers is naive.
To pretend that racism or homophobia exists only in a narrow margin of decision makers is naive.
Here's a theory: most managers have at some time in their past been players at some level. At the time when most of today's professional managers were playing, racism was even more inherent in the game than it is now. If a non-white player encountered significant racism as a player then, it would take an incredibly strong individual to have the self-belief that they could manage (including directing and possibly disciplining) players who, from their experience are likely to be racist.
Assuming (hoping?) that racism is less pervasive in the game now, perhaps we may see more of today's non-white players becoming managers in the future.
Just a thought.
Assuming (hoping?) that racism is less pervasive in the game now, perhaps we may see more of today's non-white players becoming managers in the future.
Just a thought.
I don't think we should have a Rooney rule here. Why would we want an ugly granny shagging Elton John head on every Job shortlist?
James Flynn 643, Gullit, Tigana, Ince?
I hate Ince, he thinks every token effort that could be made towards black managers applies directly to him. Healthy sense of entitlement.
Black youths in the UK are from poorer backgrounds and suffer those social consequences. They have a chip on their shoulder in this white man's country, to the extent where academic achievement is shied away and ambition and success are rare. If someone does become a footballer and starts earning good money they could very well be happy spending their 20s being the Big I Am.
I remember Kieron Dyer talking of how his career suffered when he became more concerned about his street cred, which reminded me of the quote from White Men Can't Jump 'A black man would rather miss than look bad'.
So there you have it, me a middle class white man living in Notting Hill telling you how it is being black. Shizzle me nizzle...
I hate Ince, he thinks every token effort that could be made towards black managers applies directly to him. Healthy sense of entitlement.
Black youths in the UK are from poorer backgrounds and suffer those social consequences. They have a chip on their shoulder in this white man's country, to the extent where academic achievement is shied away and ambition and success are rare. If someone does become a footballer and starts earning good money they could very well be happy spending their 20s being the Big I Am.
I remember Kieron Dyer talking of how his career suffered when he became more concerned about his street cred, which reminded me of the quote from White Men Can't Jump 'A black man would rather miss than look bad'.
So there you have it, me a middle class white man living in Notting Hill telling you how it is being black. Shizzle me nizzle...
But Noel (644), the Rooney Rule came about because of a quantifiable base of available black-American coaching talent. Dick (645) alluded to it. All the coaching step-ladder hoops need to be gone through to establish credibility as a prospective hire.
Perhaps a Rooney Rule for Developmental Teams or positions such as Weir just got hired for. I could see that. This would encourage someone black (or anyone not white) to come forward looking for a job.
Not saying the EPL shouldn't instigate a like rule at some point. But doing it now would be premature. The EPL would be jamming it down owners throats instead of putting the rule in because the available talent pool was there and needed to be exploited.
Perhaps a Rooney Rule for Developmental Teams or positions such as Weir just got hired for. I could see that. This would encourage someone black (or anyone not white) to come forward looking for a job.
Not saying the EPL shouldn't instigate a like rule at some point. But doing it now would be premature. The EPL would be jamming it down owners throats instead of putting the rule in because the available talent pool was there and needed to be exploited.
Nick (656) - They got their chance because they "Played the Game" and nothing else. The dumbest reason for hiring a manager.
Gullit? The EPL can have him back. He's the nimrod Galaxy hired when Beckham came over. That worked out well.
I consider them nonsense hires because of their names and no good practical reason.
Look, one thing has to happen for black managers to come into the league. Blacks interested in coaching/managing have to force it. Every gain black-Americans enjoy (in any aspect of life) was because black-Americans forced it. No different in opening up English football to non-Whites.
For shizzle.
Gullit? The EPL can have him back. He's the nimrod Galaxy hired when Beckham came over. That worked out well.
I consider them nonsense hires because of their names and no good practical reason.
Look, one thing has to happen for black managers to come into the league. Blacks interested in coaching/managing have to force it. Every gain black-Americans enjoy (in any aspect of life) was because black-Americans forced it. No different in opening up English football to non-Whites.
For shizzle.
If I was running a country that had just fallen into an economic and social precipice, the last thing I would be worried about would be the non-issue of ethnic diversity in football management.
This is phoney PR and lip service to his press office.
Who cares?
This is phoney PR and lip service to his press office.
Who cares?
The"Rooney law" is a type of affirmative action. Affirmative action has existed in America since the mid-1960s under the presidency of Lyndon Johnson. These laws were made immediately after segregation ended. Whether they conformed to the US Constitution or not, they served a good purpose, to integrate blacks into society by forcing employers to have workforces that corresponded with their local racial demographics.
These laws served their purpose at the time but are now outdated and simply result in reverse-discrimination. It's easier for a minority to find a job because businesses want to appear to be diverse.
Maybe you guys have this type of stuff happening in England already, I don't know. In America, it hasn't turned out to be a good idea.
These laws served their purpose at the time but are now outdated and simply result in reverse-discrimination. It's easier for a minority to find a job because businesses want to appear to be diverse.
Maybe you guys have this type of stuff happening in England already, I don't know. In America, it hasn't turned out to be a good idea.
To clarify, I'm half-white, half-black. If anything, I would benefit from affirmative action but I still think it's a really bad idea.
James Flynn (659) says...
"Look, one thing has to happen for black managers to come into the league. Blacks interested in coaching/managing have to force it. Every gain black-Americans enjoy (in any aspect of life) was because black-Americans forced it. No different in opening up English football to non-Whites".
Think this pretty much nails it, but it also begs the question why, (in 2012), do people from one ethnic group have to 'force it', while others just seem to get it.
(again if you have any doubt as to whether there is a problem or not, look at the statistics).
"Look, one thing has to happen for black managers to come into the league. Blacks interested in coaching/managing have to force it. Every gain black-Americans enjoy (in any aspect of life) was because black-Americans forced it. No different in opening up English football to non-Whites".
Think this pretty much nails it, but it also begs the question why, (in 2012), do people from one ethnic group have to 'force it', while others just seem to get it.
(again if you have any doubt as to whether there is a problem or not, look at the statistics).
James @ 658,
"All the coaching step-ladder hoops need to be gone through to establish credibility as a prospective hire"
Correct. The point is though, that a disproportionately low amount of black ex players make the transition to coaching / managing because - rightly or wrongly - there is a perception that they won't be considered due to ingrained perceptions that black men don't fit the bill with club owners and boards. If by introducing this rule, it ensures one (qualified) black manager gets considered, I don't see what harm it can do.
I also think it's somewhat disingenuous to label someone like Jean Tigana as a "nonsense hire" who got the Fulham gig because he "played the game", considering what he had done before he went there.
As Eugene says, why should one ethnic group have to "force it"?
"All the coaching step-ladder hoops need to be gone through to establish credibility as a prospective hire"
Correct. The point is though, that a disproportionately low amount of black ex players make the transition to coaching / managing because - rightly or wrongly - there is a perception that they won't be considered due to ingrained perceptions that black men don't fit the bill with club owners and boards. If by introducing this rule, it ensures one (qualified) black manager gets considered, I don't see what harm it can do.
I also think it's somewhat disingenuous to label someone like Jean Tigana as a "nonsense hire" who got the Fulham gig because he "played the game", considering what he had done before he went there.
As Eugene says, why should one ethnic group have to "force it"?
How does Rooney's Law work? If what we are told is true then it applies to "black" candidates. What is the definition? What happens if you are of mixed race? What happens if one of your parents is of mixed race but the other is white?
What happens if you are Asian and you want an interview. What happens if you are from any other under represented minority? Should there be a Rooney's Law for them?
Of course not. Rooney's Law is, in my view, a flawed principle. Nothing wrong, and everything right, in viewing racism as abhorrent in our society. You deal with it by education and the changing of attitudes. And it is happening, slowly, but it is happening. Your children's view on racism will almost certainly be more enlightened than your parent's.
Introducing Rooney's Law here is discrimination in itself. In business you appoint the most talented regardless of ethnicity. That way you survive and prosper. This idea that we are all secretly racist, but we just don't realise it, is poppycock.
What happens if you are Asian and you want an interview. What happens if you are from any other under represented minority? Should there be a Rooney's Law for them?
Of course not. Rooney's Law is, in my view, a flawed principle. Nothing wrong, and everything right, in viewing racism as abhorrent in our society. You deal with it by education and the changing of attitudes. And it is happening, slowly, but it is happening. Your children's view on racism will almost certainly be more enlightened than your parent's.
Introducing Rooney's Law here is discrimination in itself. In business you appoint the most talented regardless of ethnicity. That way you survive and prosper. This idea that we are all secretly racist, but we just don't realise it, is poppycock.
Racism and homophobia in English football is nowhere near as bad as most hispanic countries....
Bloody Poofy Dagos.
Bloody Poofy Dagos.
Five CVs land on your desk and you decide to interview three. None of the CVs are attached with pictures of the candidates, so you eliminate two by selecting the three you judge most qualified for the position. Because of Rooneys Law, you must ring the candidates to find out their Ethnic origin, and discover the least qualified is black, while the other four are white. You now must invite the least qualified for the third interview at the expense of your previous third selection, who has done nothing wrong but be born white. I can see the prejudices alright...
Hire the person you see as most qualified I say.
Hire the person you see as most qualified I say.
We have the a similar thing to the Rooney Law in this country - its called positive discrimination. Most council and local Government agencies implement this strategy, which I think is wrong and immoral.
Selecting one candidate over another is still a form of racism or sexism regardless of how you dress it up. Having worked in in local Government and seeing some of the people recruited, you wonder how the hell they got the job.
No, the old principle of the best person for the job still should be applied. It really is up to the individual concerned to learn more, become more qualified and to work harder on making themselves more employable without them getting an unfair leg up from the system over other suitable candidates.
Selecting one candidate over another is still a form of racism or sexism regardless of how you dress it up. Having worked in in local Government and seeing some of the people recruited, you wonder how the hell they got the job.
No, the old principle of the best person for the job still should be applied. It really is up to the individual concerned to learn more, become more qualified and to work harder on making themselves more employable without them getting an unfair leg up from the system over other suitable candidates.
Didn't Paul Ince have a go in the Premier League as Blackburn manager?
The stats should look at how many black players are taking their coaching badges, I imagine this is the first step to becoming a manager.
If you look around the PL though, you could find prejudice against lower league managers. Most PL teams want a track record, or proof of success in the form of promotion etc... It seems to be the same old names every time a job becomes available.
Look at Wolves, and the names in the frame, Alan Curbishley FFS!!
I think it is becoming more difficult to break into the PL for any manager – never mind what your ethnic background is. If you are not one the old guard, forget it. I suppose no-one wants to take a chance with the amounts of money involved.
I don't see there being a huge problem if you are are a black player who wants to take his badges, and start off managing in the lower leagues, or non-league football.
The stats should look at how many black players are taking their coaching badges, I imagine this is the first step to becoming a manager.
If you look around the PL though, you could find prejudice against lower league managers. Most PL teams want a track record, or proof of success in the form of promotion etc... It seems to be the same old names every time a job becomes available.
Look at Wolves, and the names in the frame, Alan Curbishley FFS!!
I think it is becoming more difficult to break into the PL for any manager – never mind what your ethnic background is. If you are not one the old guard, forget it. I suppose no-one wants to take a chance with the amounts of money involved.
I don't see there being a huge problem if you are are a black player who wants to take his badges, and start off managing in the lower leagues, or non-league football.
GJ Butler, your argument is compelling and hard to disagree with. However, I have seen positive discrimination succeed with regard to sectarianism and on the lines of gender. Sometimes a radical solution is the only solution.
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Les Ferdinand brought into a coaching role by a elderly white man and a jewish board?
Most managers were playing in the 70's and early 80's. There were very few black players playing at that point. I would expect to see the number of black coaches and managers grow over the next decade. If, like Les ferdinand, they don't go and do the badges the there won't be.
I can't think of a nation that has tried to do more to combat racism in the game than us so I think it's a bit unfair for Ferdinand and highly hypocritical of Barnes to have a go.
Perhaps Barnes could have inspired some of the younger black players that look up to him by slamming the racist actions of Luis suarez and the enabling actions of his former club, opposed to the party line shite he spouted on their behalf?
The other thing I have noticed is that a great deal of black players in our league are not British nationals.
A look through Everton's side shows Howard, Distin, Drenthe, Gueye and Anichebe who I would class as first teamers. Only Victor has English nationality. How many stay in our game when they finish playing? And if the answers low, how big is the pool to choose from?
Another question I have is how would you feel being interviewed purely down to the colour of your skin? Not an easy situation to bring about and a potentially damaging one for relations as I would feel patronised.
I'm sure there are a some chairmen wih the attitude mentioned in post one of this thread. I'm sure there are many more who will do whatever is necessary to ensure the maximum performance of their multi-million pound businesses. As someone said a Black Clough or shankley or even Ince doing well in the prem could change things.
Most managers were playing in the 70's and early 80's. There were very few black players playing at that point. I would expect to see the number of black coaches and managers grow over the next decade. If, like Les ferdinand, they don't go and do the badges the there won't be.
I can't think of a nation that has tried to do more to combat racism in the game than us so I think it's a bit unfair for Ferdinand and highly hypocritical of Barnes to have a go.
Perhaps Barnes could have inspired some of the younger black players that look up to him by slamming the racist actions of Luis suarez and the enabling actions of his former club, opposed to the party line shite he spouted on their behalf?
The other thing I have noticed is that a great deal of black players in our league are not British nationals.
A look through Everton's side shows Howard, Distin, Drenthe, Gueye and Anichebe who I would class as first teamers. Only Victor has English nationality. How many stay in our game when they finish playing? And if the answers low, how big is the pool to choose from?
Another question I have is how would you feel being interviewed purely down to the colour of your skin? Not an easy situation to bring about and a potentially damaging one for relations as I would feel patronised.
I'm sure there are a some chairmen wih the attitude mentioned in post one of this thread. I'm sure there are many more who will do whatever is necessary to ensure the maximum performance of their multi-million pound businesses. As someone said a Black Clough or shankley or even Ince doing well in the prem could change things.
"...but it also begs the question why, (in 2012), do people from one ethnic group have to 'force it', while others just seem to get it."
Basically because of the entirety of human history Eugene. That can't be said to be the fault of anyone in particular.
Exactly which statistics are you referring to? I can't find any that say how many black managers there are, but according the the 2001 census 2% of British people are black, and 1.2% self-report as 'mixed', its not clear what they are a mixture of. To match this there would need to be 2-3 managers among the 92 clubs who were black or mixed race. I am aware of Chris Hughton and Chris Powell, who I believe are the only two, and Keith Alexander was regularly employed until falling ill and dying relatively young in 2010.
Whilst I believe that these statistics prove very little, I am at a loss to understand how they are so 'damning'. You might just a well ask why white people (or Asians) are statistically so under-represented amongst professional players whilst black players are massively over represented as a proportion of the population. Is it because managers and coaches, even if only subconsciously, are prejudiced against them and in favour of black people? Probably not, but again there's no real way of knowing, we can only trade 'gut feelings'. It does however, using statistics, make as much sense as arguing that black managers are prejudiced against.
So whilst there are lots of complicated factors at play here, and I make no claim to know the rights and wrongs of this situation, if indeed it really is a situation, I highly dispute your claim to 'look at the statistics' because they are 'damning'. And if I am wrong about this, its important that you contribute to the discussion by providing the statistics you refer to and explain what you infer from them.
Basically because of the entirety of human history Eugene. That can't be said to be the fault of anyone in particular.
Exactly which statistics are you referring to? I can't find any that say how many black managers there are, but according the the 2001 census 2% of British people are black, and 1.2% self-report as 'mixed', its not clear what they are a mixture of. To match this there would need to be 2-3 managers among the 92 clubs who were black or mixed race. I am aware of Chris Hughton and Chris Powell, who I believe are the only two, and Keith Alexander was regularly employed until falling ill and dying relatively young in 2010.
Whilst I believe that these statistics prove very little, I am at a loss to understand how they are so 'damning'. You might just a well ask why white people (or Asians) are statistically so under-represented amongst professional players whilst black players are massively over represented as a proportion of the population. Is it because managers and coaches, even if only subconsciously, are prejudiced against them and in favour of black people? Probably not, but again there's no real way of knowing, we can only trade 'gut feelings'. It does however, using statistics, make as much sense as arguing that black managers are prejudiced against.
So whilst there are lots of complicated factors at play here, and I make no claim to know the rights and wrongs of this situation, if indeed it really is a situation, I highly dispute your claim to 'look at the statistics' because they are 'damning'. And if I am wrong about this, its important that you contribute to the discussion by providing the statistics you refer to and explain what you infer from them.
"The point is though, that a disproportionately low amount of black ex players make the transition to coaching / managing because - rightly or wrongly - there is a perception that they won't be considered due to ingrained perceptions that black men don't fit the bill with club owners and boards."
Your assumption seems to be that the 'perception' is the fault of the club owners and boards. I see no reason to make this assumption.
"If by introducing this rule, it ensures one (qualified) black manager gets considered, I don't see what harm it can do."
I strongly and passionately believe that deliberately and officially treating people differently on the basis of race does lots of harm in lots of different ways. I hope some of them are obvious to save a long post about why, but maybe not.
Actually there have been times in human history, most notably post-segregation USA and post-apartheid South Africa where affirmative action was necessary because of the scale of unfairness and injustice that was needing to be corrected. But as a general rule in society, it really should be avoided. People must be treated as individuals and no message should be sent that life is easier, or you will get a chance, if you are a particular race, where somebody of another race won't get that chance.
Your assumption seems to be that the 'perception' is the fault of the club owners and boards. I see no reason to make this assumption.
"If by introducing this rule, it ensures one (qualified) black manager gets considered, I don't see what harm it can do."
I strongly and passionately believe that deliberately and officially treating people differently on the basis of race does lots of harm in lots of different ways. I hope some of them are obvious to save a long post about why, but maybe not.
Actually there have been times in human history, most notably post-segregation USA and post-apartheid South Africa where affirmative action was necessary because of the scale of unfairness and injustice that was needing to be corrected. But as a general rule in society, it really should be avoided. People must be treated as individuals and no message should be sent that life is easier, or you will get a chance, if you are a particular race, where somebody of another race won't get that chance.
Mike,
"Your assumption seems to be that the 'perception' is the fault of the club owners and boards. I see no reason to make this assumption."
Then you have wrongly assumed that I have made an assumption. It's only a perception (not sure why you feel the need to put that in inverted commas) and as I stated earlier, can neither be proved or disproved. Although if you really want me to attach fault to something, I would say it's due to society and not necessarily the football industry alone.
GJ, you say "Because of Rooneys Law, you must ring the candidates to find out their Ethnic origin".
I don't believe so. If we are talking specific to football, then I imagine most coaches / ex players / managers would already be known to the powers that be at football clubs if and when they are looking at their CVs (if indeed they use CVs at all)
"Your assumption seems to be that the 'perception' is the fault of the club owners and boards. I see no reason to make this assumption."
Then you have wrongly assumed that I have made an assumption. It's only a perception (not sure why you feel the need to put that in inverted commas) and as I stated earlier, can neither be proved or disproved. Although if you really want me to attach fault to something, I would say it's due to society and not necessarily the football industry alone.
GJ, you say "Because of Rooneys Law, you must ring the candidates to find out their Ethnic origin".
I don't believe so. If we are talking specific to football, then I imagine most coaches / ex players / managers would already be known to the powers that be at football clubs if and when they are looking at their CVs (if indeed they use CVs at all)
Any rule/law/statute that enforces a will onto an employer to make them look at a a possible less qualified candidate because of race/skin colour IS unethical.
No person of any race just "gets it".
Whatever you get in life,especially in football,you have to earn.
White people who have enjoyed success in football have had all sorts of difficulties to overcome. So have black people and anybody else who has made a success of themselves.
I'm mixed race(my biological father is from Kenya).
Is that the reason I never became a professional football manager/player? Of course not,it's because I wasn't good enough.
I notice Chris Houghton didn't stay out of work for very long. Maybe because any sane person could see what a good job he did with Newcastle and maybe Barnes and Ince would still be managing at a high level if they weren't such abject failures at Blackburn and Celtic?
I just find Ferdinands attitude disgusting. It's as though some people think they are the only ones who've had problems to overcome. When I was at school I used to get racially abused and it's not very nice but it's certainly not the reason I never became rich and famous. It's because I didn't work hard enough. Simple.
Whatever you get in life,especially in football,you have to earn.
White people who have enjoyed success in football have had all sorts of difficulties to overcome. So have black people and anybody else who has made a success of themselves.
I'm mixed race(my biological father is from Kenya).
Is that the reason I never became a professional football manager/player? Of course not,it's because I wasn't good enough.
I notice Chris Houghton didn't stay out of work for very long. Maybe because any sane person could see what a good job he did with Newcastle and maybe Barnes and Ince would still be managing at a high level if they weren't such abject failures at Blackburn and Celtic?
I just find Ferdinands attitude disgusting. It's as though some people think they are the only ones who've had problems to overcome. When I was at school I used to get racially abused and it's not very nice but it's certainly not the reason I never became rich and famous. It's because I didn't work hard enough. Simple.
Noel, my point was you are forced to interview a candidate unsuitable for the job ahead of somebody more suitable - the ringing up of the candidates with a dulux colour chart in your hand was hypothetical.
GJ, that's not the case because the basis of the rule is (a) any candidate to be interviewed requires the requisite qualifications (whatever they are to be a manager / coach), and (b) it's not ahead of anyone more suitable - it's in addition to those already selected.
It is the case Noel, because (a) you have already narrowed down your selection to those you deem MOST qualified. If you are to interview all applicant football managers who have the requisite qualifications (because this qualification gives them a lawful right to be interviewed) then it will be a very long interview process, and (b) narrowing your choice to three, and then being forced to interview a ethnic minority fourth but not an ethnic majority fifth is ahead of someone more suitable.
In the example of football which you are using, Roman Abramovich will look for someone with experience of winning European trophys when replacing AVB, and as a result will interview (hypothetically remember), two from Capello, Mourinho or Guardiola. And then Chris Kamara because he must.
Alan Ball will be on next complaining he would have got more chances to relegate teams if he wasn't ginger.
In the example of football which you are using, Roman Abramovich will look for someone with experience of winning European trophys when replacing AVB, and as a result will interview (hypothetically remember), two from Capello, Mourinho or Guardiola. And then Chris Kamara because he must.
Alan Ball will be on next complaining he would have got more chances to relegate teams if he wasn't ginger.
Thanks Duncan, No 685, just spat half masticated crisps all over the screen.
All absolute bollocks of course, If I owned a business and some government bod told me you have to interview at least one of the following. Black, Yellow, white, gay, straight, not sure yet, Yiddish, Amish, Catholic, C.O.E. Muslim, Atheist, Agnostics, Pakistani, Uncle Stani, Best mate Grani,Trappist monk, dirty skunk, Lead guitarist in a band called Funk, Sciencetoligist, marine biologist, Trick Cyclist, Buddist, rapist, escapist, Papist, Gwladys Knight, Miller Light, Richard Wright, Jedi Knight, Ewok, Dumb Fok, Anything but old junk, a sulken Vulcan from man from Uncle, Jason King, Andy King, Mr T and a load of Bling, A six foot Gnu from Timbuctoo, Old Mrs Drew from number 2, Dirty Gertie from Number 30, Mick McCarthey, Paul McCartney, Brian Carnie, Homers mate I thinks its Barnie. I'd tell them to fuckoff, I'll employ anyone I like whether their Black, yellow, white etc etc.
Disclaimer:- Sorry If I missed anybody out, I don't want the PC brigade suing me.
All absolute bollocks of course, If I owned a business and some government bod told me you have to interview at least one of the following. Black, Yellow, white, gay, straight, not sure yet, Yiddish, Amish, Catholic, C.O.E. Muslim, Atheist, Agnostics, Pakistani, Uncle Stani, Best mate Grani,Trappist monk, dirty skunk, Lead guitarist in a band called Funk, Sciencetoligist, marine biologist, Trick Cyclist, Buddist, rapist, escapist, Papist, Gwladys Knight, Miller Light, Richard Wright, Jedi Knight, Ewok, Dumb Fok, Anything but old junk, a sulken Vulcan from man from Uncle, Jason King, Andy King, Mr T and a load of Bling, A six foot Gnu from Timbuctoo, Old Mrs Drew from number 2, Dirty Gertie from Number 30, Mick McCarthey, Paul McCartney, Brian Carnie, Homers mate I thinks its Barnie. I'd tell them to fuckoff, I'll employ anyone I like whether their Black, yellow, white etc etc.
Disclaimer:- Sorry If I missed anybody out, I don't want the PC brigade suing me.
Noel, I used inverted commas because I wanted to highlight the word as being the key issue and I don't know how to italics or bold on here and didn't want to use SHOUTY CAPITALS. I have no idea why you felt the need to point out that I'd put it in inverted commas or what that was supposed to mean or insinuate.
Also, your whole reply to me is confused and/or just plain wrong. I'm not assuming anything. What you wrote seems to imply an assumption that you have made. Namely that the perception that black managers will not be given a fair chance exists and is the fault of the club owners. I even use the word 'seems' although I don't know how I can emphasise that because apparently it means something important and worth pointing out if you use inverted commas.
To avoid getting sidetracked, I'm saying that your argument implies that the perception named above exists because of the club owners, otherwise it wouldn't really be worth pointing out alongside your other arguments such as point 1 in your first post and your discussion of Rooney's law. Your argument IS making that assumption. If you think it isn't then you need to re-read it, re-phrase that or explain it given the context that I have mentioned. I am arguing that it could just as easily be that the perception exists entirely in the minds of the Les Ferdinand's of this world who see it as an excuse not to work hard, take a risk and try something they might fail at.
Also, your whole reply to me is confused and/or just plain wrong. I'm not assuming anything. What you wrote seems to imply an assumption that you have made. Namely that the perception that black managers will not be given a fair chance exists and is the fault of the club owners. I even use the word 'seems' although I don't know how I can emphasise that because apparently it means something important and worth pointing out if you use inverted commas.
To avoid getting sidetracked, I'm saying that your argument implies that the perception named above exists because of the club owners, otherwise it wouldn't really be worth pointing out alongside your other arguments such as point 1 in your first post and your discussion of Rooney's law. Your argument IS making that assumption. If you think it isn't then you need to re-read it, re-phrase that or explain it given the context that I have mentioned. I am arguing that it could just as easily be that the perception exists entirely in the minds of the Les Ferdinand's of this world who see it as an excuse not to work hard, take a risk and try something they might fail at.
That GBH on Anichebe's leg (who could have lost it, as the tackle was so violent) by Kevin Nolan only got 3 games of suspension. The Suarez incident, although regrettable and unwelcome, should only have been 3 games, when Kevin Nolan should have been given the rest of the season suspended if not longer. There has to be proportionality when dealing with on the field spats and downright thuggery, which can end a player's career, such as Anichebes'.
How much attention would we pay to any rule that said we had to play ,say, a Chinese player at the expense of a supebr white player, regardless of how crap the Chinese man was, just to meet a regulation? Managers, like players, should be chosen by ability. I don't hear creeps like Ferdinand complaining that there aren't enough black players in the Prem or other leagues. There are plenty of fantastic black players. The thing is, they probably don't want the hassle of managing a club when their playing career is finished, but prefer to go back to their homeland to enjoy life. And why not?
I'm more concerned that the number of foreign players from all ethnic backgrounds, black, white, whatever, who are playing here at the expense of English or Scottish players with the knock on effect of a poorer national side. Older fans will remember the huge number of great Scottish players who crossed the border in the 50,s and 60,s to enrich our teams, but were still available to play in a pretty decent Scotland side. There are many fewer good Scots now compared to then because there are so many foreign players turning out in the SPL. .
I'm more concerned that the number of foreign players from all ethnic backgrounds, black, white, whatever, who are playing here at the expense of English or Scottish players with the knock on effect of a poorer national side. Older fans will remember the huge number of great Scottish players who crossed the border in the 50,s and 60,s to enrich our teams, but were still available to play in a pretty decent Scotland side. There are many fewer good Scots now compared to then because there are so many foreign players turning out in the SPL. .
Ray - which homeland would that be then?
As for clubs using 'foreign' players, at least you can't blame black owners or their black managers for that, can you?
As for clubs using 'foreign' players, at least you can't blame black owners or their black managers for that, can you?
Steavey. Two totally different things man. You can't compare racial abuse with a bad foul.
Agree about Nolan though, shithouse tackle.
Agree about Nolan though, shithouse tackle.
Keith, either you're being mischievous or I've not made it clear enough.
A player from France, Senegal, Poland etc. finishes his career here, and then buggers off back to France, Senegal or Poland and enjoys his days in the sun, sipping Margaritas on his verandah.. Clear enough?
And I'm not blaming black players or black managers or the Black And White Sodding Minstrels for picking foreign players, just bemoaning the fact that the huge influx OF foreign players, from all countries, has had a detrimental effect on the quality of our international teams, especially in the case of Scotland.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to open a bottle of something red and French.!
A player from France, Senegal, Poland etc. finishes his career here, and then buggers off back to France, Senegal or Poland and enjoys his days in the sun, sipping Margaritas on his verandah.. Clear enough?
And I'm not blaming black players or black managers or the Black And White Sodding Minstrels for picking foreign players, just bemoaning the fact that the huge influx OF foreign players, from all countries, has had a detrimental effect on the quality of our international teams, especially in the case of Scotland.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to open a bottle of something red and French.!
Mike Allison (702) - You state..
"Basically because of the entirety of human history Eugene. That can't be said to be the fault of anyone in particular".
Really?
Well I disagree on that for a start.
I think it CAN be said to be the fault of anyone ('from the entirety of human history') from one ethnic group, discriminating against those from another.
Unfair?
You continue.. "Exactly which statistics are you referring to? I can't find any that say how many black managers there are, but according the the 2001 census 2% of British people are black, and 1.2% self-report as 'mixed', its not clear what they are a mixture of. To match this there would need to be 2-3 managers among the 92 clubs who were black or mixed race. I am aware of Chris Hughton and Chris Powell, who I believe are the only two, and Keith Alexander was regularly employed until falling ill and dying relatively young in 2010".
Well you know what, for my sake and yours (coz we could be here all night googling statistics) I believe the statistics are EVERYWHERE.
They can be ignored, spun, debated, exaggerated, denied, but somewhere in there, there's enough for me to come to the conclusion that (by comparison to their white counterparts) black Britons don't get a fair shake.
Yes that IS a very general comment but..that's what I believe.
This DOESN'T mean I think white Britons don't have problems, get shat on, etc, or live in some sort of Utopia (by comparison).
I also know MASSIVE strides have been made re race in this country, in the past 50 years or so and yes by comparison to many other countries, we're light years ahead, but imo, no point or justification in saying "Well we can stop now, job done"
It isn't.
Anyway, I have no doubt I'm not going to change your mind or the mind of anyone who thinks along the same lines and (as sure as eggs is eggs) nobody is going to convince me that the reason for the small number of black managers is due to the fact that they 'can't be arsed'.
I will finish with a few statistics though (as you asked - never let it be said etc).
14,000 British professors but only 50 are black (can't be arsed?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/27/only-50-black-british-professors
Only 1 per cent of barristers who have been qualified for more than 15 years are from ethnic minorities (lazy?)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-law-irvine-calls-for-more-black-judges-1296840.html
21 Oxbridge colleges took no black students last year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/06/oxford-colleges-no-black-students (etc etc).
One thing I will say on this 'race' issue that you might agree with.
Racism is a society issue.
Yes football should do everything it can to 'get it's house in order', but I don't think it should be singled out by a PM
ESPECIALLY if the PM in question is a chinless, moon-faced toff cunt like 'call me Dave,'
"Basically because of the entirety of human history Eugene. That can't be said to be the fault of anyone in particular".
Really?
Well I disagree on that for a start.
I think it CAN be said to be the fault of anyone ('from the entirety of human history') from one ethnic group, discriminating against those from another.
Unfair?
You continue.. "Exactly which statistics are you referring to? I can't find any that say how many black managers there are, but according the the 2001 census 2% of British people are black, and 1.2% self-report as 'mixed', its not clear what they are a mixture of. To match this there would need to be 2-3 managers among the 92 clubs who were black or mixed race. I am aware of Chris Hughton and Chris Powell, who I believe are the only two, and Keith Alexander was regularly employed until falling ill and dying relatively young in 2010".
Well you know what, for my sake and yours (coz we could be here all night googling statistics) I believe the statistics are EVERYWHERE.
They can be ignored, spun, debated, exaggerated, denied, but somewhere in there, there's enough for me to come to the conclusion that (by comparison to their white counterparts) black Britons don't get a fair shake.
Yes that IS a very general comment but..that's what I believe.
This DOESN'T mean I think white Britons don't have problems, get shat on, etc, or live in some sort of Utopia (by comparison).
I also know MASSIVE strides have been made re race in this country, in the past 50 years or so and yes by comparison to many other countries, we're light years ahead, but imo, no point or justification in saying "Well we can stop now, job done"
It isn't.
Anyway, I have no doubt I'm not going to change your mind or the mind of anyone who thinks along the same lines and (as sure as eggs is eggs) nobody is going to convince me that the reason for the small number of black managers is due to the fact that they 'can't be arsed'.
I will finish with a few statistics though (as you asked - never let it be said etc).
14,000 British professors but only 50 are black (can't be arsed?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/27/only-50-black-british-professors
Only 1 per cent of barristers who have been qualified for more than 15 years are from ethnic minorities (lazy?)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-law-irvine-calls-for-more-black-judges-1296840.html
21 Oxbridge colleges took no black students last year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/06/oxford-colleges-no-black-students (etc etc).
One thing I will say on this 'race' issue that you might agree with.
Racism is a society issue.
Yes football should do everything it can to 'get it's house in order', but I don't think it should be singled out by a PM
ESPECIALLY if the PM in question is a chinless, moon-faced toff cunt like 'call me Dave,'
Nick Entwhistle #656
I'll show you what I think of Paul Ince
http://m.youtube.com/?dc=organic&source=mog&hl=en-GB#/watch?v=-rcXdZpdJ6I
Haha!
I'll show you what I think of Paul Ince
http://m.youtube.com/?dc=organic&source=mog&hl=en-GB#/watch?v=-rcXdZpdJ6I
Haha!
Mike,
Firstly, my query on the inverted commas was genuine curiosity as to the context it was used,, there's nothing more sinister to it than that.
Secondly - and just for your benefit - I am not trying to convince anybody. I am just stating my feeling / suspicion that black ex-pros may well think "what's the point" of trying, if (rightly or wrongly) they believe institutional racism exists. Per my first post, I believe that the more aged club chairmen / directors may well be more prejudiced or narrow minded in their views on certain groups. This, I believe, is due to the society they grew up in being more prejudiced, less exposed to and less tolerant of, other groups. I am not suggesting they are racist but that it's possible they may have more deep rooted, ingrained prejudices, without even realising it.
By introducing the Rooney rule, I believe it could encourage more black ex pros to give coaching or managing a crack. The concern I would have, as I stated in my first post, is the precedent the ruling would set.
Once more, this is all just my feeling and opinion. It is not something I can prove or anyone can disprove. I could be correct. I could be wrong. You clearly believe the latter. So be it. Does that clarify things?
As for the stats, I'd be more interested in seeing the percentages of white versus black ex-pros who make the leap from playing to coaching or managing. Interestingly, ginger Scots seem to be well represented.
And for what it's worth, John Barnes is the last person who can complain, since he got one of the biggest jobs in UK football ahead of others with better credentials, based (in my opinion) on his name, and made a monkeys of it (pun intended)
Firstly, my query on the inverted commas was genuine curiosity as to the context it was used,, there's nothing more sinister to it than that.
Secondly - and just for your benefit - I am not trying to convince anybody. I am just stating my feeling / suspicion that black ex-pros may well think "what's the point" of trying, if (rightly or wrongly) they believe institutional racism exists. Per my first post, I believe that the more aged club chairmen / directors may well be more prejudiced or narrow minded in their views on certain groups. This, I believe, is due to the society they grew up in being more prejudiced, less exposed to and less tolerant of, other groups. I am not suggesting they are racist but that it's possible they may have more deep rooted, ingrained prejudices, without even realising it.
By introducing the Rooney rule, I believe it could encourage more black ex pros to give coaching or managing a crack. The concern I would have, as I stated in my first post, is the precedent the ruling would set.
Once more, this is all just my feeling and opinion. It is not something I can prove or anyone can disprove. I could be correct. I could be wrong. You clearly believe the latter. So be it. Does that clarify things?
As for the stats, I'd be more interested in seeing the percentages of white versus black ex-pros who make the leap from playing to coaching or managing. Interestingly, ginger Scots seem to be well represented.
And for what it's worth, John Barnes is the last person who can complain, since he got one of the biggest jobs in UK football ahead of others with better credentials, based (in my opinion) on his name, and made a monkeys of it (pun intended)
The way I read the first part of your post is that you were trying to bluff about the statistics in football and I called you on it. You don't seem to offer much of a rebuttal.
You also say you disagree with my statement (the first one you quote) but don't really say how. Who's fault is it that in 2012 people from one ethnic group have to 'force it' whilst others just 'get it'? You haven't really answered that.
By the way, just so I'm not making stupid assumptions about what you're saying, who 'has to force it' and who just 'gets it'? Because in your most recent post you seem to suggest its black people who have to force it but also seem to accept that white people don't just 'get it', so you've left me a little confused.
I'm also slightly insulted, although I'm not taking it particularly seriously, that you seem to be placing me in a position I'm not really taking so that you can get on a moral high horse and argue with me. I'm sorry, but you don't have any moral high ground over me and if you think you do then you don't really appreciate what I'm saying.
Where society as a whole needs to deal with racism problems, that effort is positively harmed by:
1) false accusations of racism,
2) people of ethnic minorities adopting a victim culture and assuming nothing can be their fault because they never had a chance and
3) People looking for racism where none exists because it either suits their personal agenda or allows them to adopt a position where they believe they have moral high ground over anyone who doesn't agree with them.
For the record, I'm not even saying that Noel's subconscious racism isn't there, I've never said that. In fact, I said it probably is there in some cases. My main point is that an awful lot of things are being asserted here entirely based on gut feelings, hunches, and what seems to be white guilt.
We don't know if club owners think like that. I don't know, you don't know, and if its subconscious they don't even know. This means we have no way of finding out, there is no evidence (other than some fairly meaningless statistics which at the very least certainly don't back up your side of the debate) and most of what is being said here is an awful lot of unsubstantiated guesswork. Something I absolutely believe you to be guilty of and Noel accepted from the outset was a necessity of the situation.
I'm not sure what your other statistics were meant to be about, or what you inclusion of the words (can't be arsed?) and (lazy?) were meant to imply about what you think my views are. But it seems you were trying to imply I held a racist viewpoint. They were also slightly odd and selective statistics designed to do exactly the kind of harm to the anti-racism cause that I was talking about. Why restrict the barristers statistic to 'more than 15 years'? Is it because taking barristers with less than 15 years experience into account doesn't fit your agenda? What is the statistic on that?
Sorry I called your bluff and showed you up, but don't use that as a reason to treat as if I'm some kind of racist. Your misrepresentation of my views in your post was a fucking disgrace.
You also say you disagree with my statement (the first one you quote) but don't really say how. Who's fault is it that in 2012 people from one ethnic group have to 'force it' whilst others just 'get it'? You haven't really answered that.
By the way, just so I'm not making stupid assumptions about what you're saying, who 'has to force it' and who just 'gets it'? Because in your most recent post you seem to suggest its black people who have to force it but also seem to accept that white people don't just 'get it', so you've left me a little confused.
I'm also slightly insulted, although I'm not taking it particularly seriously, that you seem to be placing me in a position I'm not really taking so that you can get on a moral high horse and argue with me. I'm sorry, but you don't have any moral high ground over me and if you think you do then you don't really appreciate what I'm saying.
Where society as a whole needs to deal with racism problems, that effort is positively harmed by:
1) false accusations of racism,
2) people of ethnic minorities adopting a victim culture and assuming nothing can be their fault because they never had a chance and
3) People looking for racism where none exists because it either suits their personal agenda or allows them to adopt a position where they believe they have moral high ground over anyone who doesn't agree with them.
For the record, I'm not even saying that Noel's subconscious racism isn't there, I've never said that. In fact, I said it probably is there in some cases. My main point is that an awful lot of things are being asserted here entirely based on gut feelings, hunches, and what seems to be white guilt.
We don't know if club owners think like that. I don't know, you don't know, and if its subconscious they don't even know. This means we have no way of finding out, there is no evidence (other than some fairly meaningless statistics which at the very least certainly don't back up your side of the debate) and most of what is being said here is an awful lot of unsubstantiated guesswork. Something I absolutely believe you to be guilty of and Noel accepted from the outset was a necessity of the situation.
I'm not sure what your other statistics were meant to be about, or what you inclusion of the words (can't be arsed?) and (lazy?) were meant to imply about what you think my views are. But it seems you were trying to imply I held a racist viewpoint. They were also slightly odd and selective statistics designed to do exactly the kind of harm to the anti-racism cause that I was talking about. Why restrict the barristers statistic to 'more than 15 years'? Is it because taking barristers with less than 15 years experience into account doesn't fit your agenda? What is the statistic on that?
Sorry I called your bluff and showed you up, but don't use that as a reason to treat as if I'm some kind of racist. Your misrepresentation of my views in your post was a fucking disgrace.
Noel,
To play the statistical game of how well people are represented is to misapply statistics in a dangerous way. Your ginger Scotsman example is a good one, aren't 6/20 Premier League managers from Glasgow? Does this mean anything? I know you might say that I started it, but actually I didn't really, I simply used it to suggest that something Eugene Ruane seemed to be taking for granted simply wasn't the case.
I agree there is an issue of black former players becoming managers, and I agree that it SEEMS to be a lower proportion than white former players, but I don't actually know that.
I also agree that of the two or three highest profile in British football, John Barnes, Paul Ince and Ruud Gullit, all were given jobs above their qualifications and experience and none did those jobs particularly well. Jean Tigana I see as totally separate case as he had proven himself in France and his lack of success was more in the Christian Gross, Juande Ramos, Martin Jol mould.
I also believe that if Les Ferdinand's attitude is as it has been understood on this thread, then that is a far bigger problem and much clearer cut example of prejudice on his part. It amounts to saying:
"Those bastards won't give me a job"
"Which ones have you applied for?"
"I haven't applied for any, because they wouldn't give me one"
"How do you know?"
"Er... I just reckon"
Maybe that wasn't what 'Sir Les' meant, in which case I'd owe him an apology, but its a dangerous view to prejudge that someone else will be prejudiced. What chance do they have to prove you wrong?
To recap, I disagree with a Rooney type ruling for English football and believe it would do more harm than good, but this is because I believe race should play no part in the judgement of a person's fitness for a job.
To play the statistical game of how well people are represented is to misapply statistics in a dangerous way. Your ginger Scotsman example is a good one, aren't 6/20 Premier League managers from Glasgow? Does this mean anything? I know you might say that I started it, but actually I didn't really, I simply used it to suggest that something Eugene Ruane seemed to be taking for granted simply wasn't the case.
I agree there is an issue of black former players becoming managers, and I agree that it SEEMS to be a lower proportion than white former players, but I don't actually know that.
I also agree that of the two or three highest profile in British football, John Barnes, Paul Ince and Ruud Gullit, all were given jobs above their qualifications and experience and none did those jobs particularly well. Jean Tigana I see as totally separate case as he had proven himself in France and his lack of success was more in the Christian Gross, Juande Ramos, Martin Jol mould.
I also believe that if Les Ferdinand's attitude is as it has been understood on this thread, then that is a far bigger problem and much clearer cut example of prejudice on his part. It amounts to saying:
"Those bastards won't give me a job"
"Which ones have you applied for?"
"I haven't applied for any, because they wouldn't give me one"
"How do you know?"
"Er... I just reckon"
Maybe that wasn't what 'Sir Les' meant, in which case I'd owe him an apology, but its a dangerous view to prejudge that someone else will be prejudiced. What chance do they have to prove you wrong?
To recap, I disagree with a Rooney type ruling for English football and believe it would do more harm than good, but this is because I believe race should play no part in the judgement of a person's fitness for a job.
Colin Wainwright
#758
There has to be proportionality. Having a spat like Suarez's on Evra was dealt with, quite rightly. But 8 games? When you think back to Kevin Nolan's vicious tackle on Anichebe's leg, it still makes me wince when I think of about it. Yet, Nolan only got 3 games suspended.
A lot of racism is down to a lot cultural differences. On the field it's used to 'wind' the opponents up. You only have to watch Australia v England at cricket in Australia and the amount of pom bashing that goes on. But it's part of the Aussie strategy to wind the poms up, sorry the English batsmen.
#758
There has to be proportionality. Having a spat like Suarez's on Evra was dealt with, quite rightly. But 8 games? When you think back to Kevin Nolan's vicious tackle on Anichebe's leg, it still makes me wince when I think of about it. Yet, Nolan only got 3 games suspended.
A lot of racism is down to a lot cultural differences. On the field it's used to 'wind' the opponents up. You only have to watch Australia v England at cricket in Australia and the amount of pom bashing that goes on. But it's part of the Aussie strategy to wind the poms up, sorry the English batsmen.
Forget all this positive discrimination rubbish: you could argue that black, and foreign players are over represented in our league compared to all the other European leagues.
It's Looney's law that concerns me: the law that states most PL clubs must be owned by foreign Jews i.e. Chelsea, Man Utd, Aston Villa, Arsenal, and formerly, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Birmingham and West Ham when they were in the PL and others I can't quite remember right now. These people, such as Glazier, Lerner, Hicks etc. have no affiliation with these clubs and usually no interest in the game or the country, the club is just a capitalist venture. Why aren't the powers that be having a discussion about that?
It's Looney's law that concerns me: the law that states most PL clubs must be owned by foreign Jews i.e. Chelsea, Man Utd, Aston Villa, Arsenal, and formerly, Liverpool, Portsmouth, Birmingham and West Ham when they were in the PL and others I can't quite remember right now. These people, such as Glazier, Lerner, Hicks etc. have no affiliation with these clubs and usually no interest in the game or the country, the club is just a capitalist venture. Why aren't the powers that be having a discussion about that?
Mick Davies (802)
Yes we DEFINITELY have to keep an eye out for those loonies (whispers, they're everywhere!).
Yes we DEFINITELY have to keep an eye out for those loonies (whispers, they're everywhere!).
Now we hear about handshakes after as well as before the game. The players of both teams and the Ref plus his soon to be 4 assistants plus both managers and their back room staff all join hands around the centre circle for a mass performance of Ring-a Ring of Roses.
I would like to see that.
Probably more entertaining than what we usually get.
I would like to see that.
Probably more entertaining than what we usually get.
To give a person a job because of the colour of their skin is a form of reverse racism.
I recall an interview with Chris Kamara and Les Ferdinand, I think it was Goals on Sunday.
Les was putting the argument that he passionately believes in; Chris came back with: he did not believe, if a chairman had an applicant who would progress his club, he would refuse him the job because he was black.
I am 100% for equality; what Les asks for is inequality – in fact, preferential treatment.
I recall an interview with Chris Kamara and Les Ferdinand, I think it was Goals on Sunday.
Les was putting the argument that he passionately believes in; Chris came back with: he did not believe, if a chairman had an applicant who would progress his club, he would refuse him the job because he was black.
I am 100% for equality; what Les asks for is inequality – in fact, preferential treatment.
Yes, Dick, and instead of these ridiculous choreographed dance type "celebrations" favoured by some of the..er...black players, who are, in my opinion showing off the fact that they can Dad Dance better than us white blokes, maybe the English players should start celebrating their own ethnicity by doing a bit of Morris Dancing! And Moyes could re-employ that Scottish Piper Walter Smith used to have wandering across the pitch in a whisky induced fog as a tape of a cat being slaughtered boomed out from the tannoys.
I think we're on to something here...
I think we're on to something here...
Mick,
The Scouse Christians have proven themselves to be cunts of the highest order too.
You can guarantee anybody with the type of dough to buy PL football clubs views most things as a capitalist venture.
Lets fuck them all off and get Trevor Brooking and Jimmy Hill to run every side.
The Scouse Christians have proven themselves to be cunts of the highest order too.
You can guarantee anybody with the type of dough to buy PL football clubs views most things as a capitalist venture.
Lets fuck them all off and get Trevor Brooking and Jimmy Hill to run every side.
Mike Allison (780) - you say..
"It amounts to saying:
"Those bastards won't give me a job"
"Which ones have you applied for?"
"I haven't applied for any, because they wouldn't give me one"
"How do you know?"
"Er... I just reckon"
Does it?
Really?
Well..fine, that's your interpretation but (like mine), pure guesswork.
And as it's guesswork, I believe what you (anybody) guesses (and shares) is probably simply dependent on how you/we see the world/Britain/racism/race (it has to be based on something...right?)
Consequently, I must see it very differently to you, as for me, It amounts to him saying:
"Those bastards won't give me a job"
"Which ones have you applied for?"
"I haven't applied for any, because they wouldn't give me one"
"How do you know?"
"I don't know for 100% certain, I am making my decision based on a combination of my experience of growing up black and British and the experiences of those I know who have tried and failed on many occasions to gain managerial positions*. I have made my decision logically based on probability".
(* something he'd possibly have a better idea of than you).
As I say, just a guess.
Personally, I believe it's political correctness gone mad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmkHLiZMJeU
"It amounts to saying:
"Those bastards won't give me a job"
"Which ones have you applied for?"
"I haven't applied for any, because they wouldn't give me one"
"How do you know?"
"Er... I just reckon"
Does it?
Really?
Well..fine, that's your interpretation but (like mine), pure guesswork.
And as it's guesswork, I believe what you (anybody) guesses (and shares) is probably simply dependent on how you/we see the world/Britain/racism/race (it has to be based on something...right?)
Consequently, I must see it very differently to you, as for me, It amounts to him saying:
"Those bastards won't give me a job"
"Which ones have you applied for?"
"I haven't applied for any, because they wouldn't give me one"
"How do you know?"
"I don't know for 100% certain, I am making my decision based on a combination of my experience of growing up black and British and the experiences of those I know who have tried and failed on many occasions to gain managerial positions*. I have made my decision logically based on probability".
(* something he'd possibly have a better idea of than you).
As I say, just a guess.
Personally, I believe it's political correctness gone mad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmkHLiZMJeU
It's unlike Cameron to jump on a bandwagon.
Eugene (628), you are talking nonsense.
We all have to take responsibility for our own fotunes and misfortunes in the first instance.
If Les Ferdinand had applied for loads of jobs at various levels of the game, possessed all the appropriate coaching badges, and he talked a good game in interviews, then he could hold his head high and make a statement such as that which he made on the radio recently.
Positive discrimination is a misnomer. How can discrimination ever be positive?
Sounds like Cameron and the FA are back playing the PR game as a result of Suarez-gate.
We all have to take responsibility for our own fotunes and misfortunes in the first instance.
If Les Ferdinand had applied for loads of jobs at various levels of the game, possessed all the appropriate coaching badges, and he talked a good game in interviews, then he could hold his head high and make a statement such as that which he made on the radio recently.
Positive discrimination is a misnomer. How can discrimination ever be positive?
Sounds like Cameron and the FA are back playing the PR game as a result of Suarez-gate.
How apt... Terry Connor appointed Wolves manager.
Oh yeah, he's done his coaching badges and he's not white!
I wonder how he's been discriminated against? Just saying like :)
Oh yeah, he's done his coaching badges and he's not white!
I wonder how he's been discriminated against? Just saying like :)
Looks like Terry Connor worked harder than Sir Les.
It's bloody hard work this working hard thing!!
It's bloody hard work this working hard thing!!
Anthony Jones (853).
You accuse me of ‘talking nonsense‘, I hope you won‘t mind me responding.
You say...
"We all have to take responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes in the first instance".
Do we REALLY?
What a sage you are!
So (and please tell if I‘ve got this wrong} you‘re stating racism is basically a myth or an excuse, now and always?
I mean if, as you suggest, success or failure is simply a matter of us ‘taking responsibility‘, this infers that racism, at best, doesn‘t affect anything and at worst, doesn‘t exist.
Wow!
Jesus, all those documentaries I‘ve seen that showed institutionalised racism - the people who made them must be feeling pretty stupid right now.
Free Nelson Mandela!?
Fuck him - let him and all those black South Africans ‘take responsibility for their own fortunes and misfortunes‘.
Martin Luther King, what a lazy nobhead, should have kept it shut and applied to be the boss of The NY Yankees (‘I had a dream‘? - Yes well you will if you‘re in your pit all day...Grrrr).
No blacks, no, dogs, no Irish?
No LAZY buggers more like, eh Anthony?
You ask..
"Positive discrimination is a misnomer. How can discrimination ever be positive?"
Answer - because it OBVIOUSLY fucking well can be IF you want to be fair.
Example: If you discriminate FOR the poor when it comes to handing out soup, it‘s positive, geddit? (guessing no and some semantics antics response)
I appreciate we all see the world differently, but it seems odd to me that there are people who can not only get worked up about positive discrimination, but can also deny the existence of negative discrimination.
Incredible!
You accuse me of ‘talking nonsense‘, I hope you won‘t mind me responding.
You say...
"We all have to take responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes in the first instance".
Do we REALLY?
What a sage you are!
So (and please tell if I‘ve got this wrong} you‘re stating racism is basically a myth or an excuse, now and always?
I mean if, as you suggest, success or failure is simply a matter of us ‘taking responsibility‘, this infers that racism, at best, doesn‘t affect anything and at worst, doesn‘t exist.
Wow!
Jesus, all those documentaries I‘ve seen that showed institutionalised racism - the people who made them must be feeling pretty stupid right now.
Free Nelson Mandela!?
Fuck him - let him and all those black South Africans ‘take responsibility for their own fortunes and misfortunes‘.
Martin Luther King, what a lazy nobhead, should have kept it shut and applied to be the boss of The NY Yankees (‘I had a dream‘? - Yes well you will if you‘re in your pit all day...Grrrr).
No blacks, no, dogs, no Irish?
No LAZY buggers more like, eh Anthony?
You ask..
"Positive discrimination is a misnomer. How can discrimination ever be positive?"
Answer - because it OBVIOUSLY fucking well can be IF you want to be fair.
Example: If you discriminate FOR the poor when it comes to handing out soup, it‘s positive, geddit? (guessing no and some semantics antics response)
I appreciate we all see the world differently, but it seems odd to me that there are people who can not only get worked up about positive discrimination, but can also deny the existence of negative discrimination.
Incredible!
While I agree Liverpool's and Suarez's behaviour certainly didn't make things any better, I disagree in employing people as managers due to their race. Clubs employ the person who they believe is the best man for the job; they may be white... they may be black.
There's very few black faces at football matches, even in cities like London. Even clubs like Spurs who play in an area that has a huge population of black people have very few black fans. Manchester City played in Mosside; despite this, they have very few black fans. Aston Villa also play in a black area of Birmingham; despite this, they have very few black fans. In fact, the only club that has a sizable black support is Arsenal.
I've observed that black people regard football as being just a game whereas white people and hispanics regard football as a way of life.
There's very few black faces at football matches, even in cities like London. Even clubs like Spurs who play in an area that has a huge population of black people have very few black fans. Manchester City played in Mosside; despite this, they have very few black fans. Aston Villa also play in a black area of Birmingham; despite this, they have very few black fans. In fact, the only club that has a sizable black support is Arsenal.
I've observed that black people regard football as being just a game whereas white people and hispanics regard football as a way of life.
Eugene, 888, I'm impressed by your conviction, but not your reasoning.
Cheers
Cheers
Anthony (899).
Cheers?
CHEERS!!?
What do you mean ‘cheers‘ - I‘d NEVER drink with a fucking Welshman or anyone with a Welsh name!
And before you suggest there‘s anything iffy in that statement, ask yourself is it ME being awful, or do YOU need to ‘take responsibility for YOUR own fortunes and misfortunes'?
(by the way, for any Welsh TWers, I'm, OF COURSE kidding - in fact some of my best fleeting acquaintances...)
Cheers?
CHEERS!!?
What do you mean ‘cheers‘ - I‘d NEVER drink with a fucking Welshman or anyone with a Welsh name!
And before you suggest there‘s anything iffy in that statement, ask yourself is it ME being awful, or do YOU need to ‘take responsibility for YOUR own fortunes and misfortunes'?
(by the way, for any Welsh TWers, I'm, OF COURSE kidding - in fact some of my best fleeting acquaintances...)
Eugene you're at it again. You are talking nonsense. Nobody is saying that racism is a myth or an excuse, and your link to Stewart Lee, who I'm a big fan of, is completely inappropriate. You're trying to put Anthony in the same position you tried to put me. He simply isn't saying what you want him to be saying. If he was saying that, you could be the enlightened good guy and smite him down from the high horse up there on your moral high ground and you'd feel great about yourself. Unfortunately for you that simply isn't what's happening here.
You seem to be completely unable to grasp the idea that many non-racist people, who support anti-racist causes, still don't actually see racism everywhere. Racism still exists, and needs to be dealt with intelligently and effectively in a variety of ways relative to the variety of situations its found in. That doesn't mean it exists every single time somebody claims it exists.
You tried to counter one of my arguments above and did it entirely ineffectively. Your new version of what Les Ferdinand would say in my imaginary conversation is exactly what I'm talking about. He prejudges the people and gives them no chance whatsoever to prove him wrong. He may have a perception that he will be discriminated against, and this may be as a result of his growing up black in Britain, AND HE MAY STILL BE WRONG! (Not shouting, but still can't do bold or italics). The point is, he is definitely guilty of prejudice himself, and SEEMS (italics) to be making an excuse to avoid doing something difficult he may fail at.
I'll repeat a phrase I used before, as writing it once doesn't seem to have been enough: if you prejudge someone else to be prejudiced, what chance do they have to prove you wrong?
You seem to be completely unable to grasp the idea that many non-racist people, who support anti-racist causes, still don't actually see racism everywhere. Racism still exists, and needs to be dealt with intelligently and effectively in a variety of ways relative to the variety of situations its found in. That doesn't mean it exists every single time somebody claims it exists.
You tried to counter one of my arguments above and did it entirely ineffectively. Your new version of what Les Ferdinand would say in my imaginary conversation is exactly what I'm talking about. He prejudges the people and gives them no chance whatsoever to prove him wrong. He may have a perception that he will be discriminated against, and this may be as a result of his growing up black in Britain, AND HE MAY STILL BE WRONG! (Not shouting, but still can't do bold or italics). The point is, he is definitely guilty of prejudice himself, and SEEMS (italics) to be making an excuse to avoid doing something difficult he may fail at.
I'll repeat a phrase I used before, as writing it once doesn't seem to have been enough: if you prejudge someone else to be prejudiced, what chance do they have to prove you wrong?
As someone who was utterly opposed to it I was forced to admit that positive discrimination works and has been a small part in changing things for ordinary people.
Mike Allison (921). Are you serious?
You take issue with my version of what Les MIGHT have been thinking, because it doesn't tie with your ENTIRELY INVENTED version.
I gave you entirely reasonable reasons for why he might have arrived at my INVENTED version and you're getting a weed on?
He may still be wrong?
Yeah and he may be absofucking spot on.
Why get all cunty when we're BOTH guessing?
I don't know and (roll on the drums) NEITHER ARE YOU!
You also say..
"You're trying to put Anthony in the same position you tried to put me. He simply isn't saying what you want him to be saying. If he was saying that, you could be the enlightened good guy and smite him down from the high horse up there on your moral high ground and you'd feel great about yourself. Unfortunately for you that simply isn't what's happening here"
Imo, bullshit!
But fine, prove me wrong tell me what Anthony's..
"We all have to take responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes in the first instance" means.
Tell me how I 'misinterpreted' it (nb: I didn't!)
I (admittedly using sarcasm - no rule against that) pointed out that it seems crystal clear (to me) what it means.
I believe you are arguing fiddly, daft semantics to make a 'point' and (deliberately?) ignoring a very obvious bigger picture.
Another thing.
You also tell me "You tried to counter one of my arguments above and did it entirely ineffectively"
Well...possibly but..
1) It helps if you mention WHICH 'argument'
2) Keep in mind, on a forum like TW, it's not actually you (much as you would obviously love to) who decides who has an ineffective argument or not.
Oh and re your last paragraph - EVERY chance!
I don't know you, never met you, so I can ONLY judge on what you write on here.
That's EXACTLY what I have done.
You take issue with my version of what Les MIGHT have been thinking, because it doesn't tie with your ENTIRELY INVENTED version.
I gave you entirely reasonable reasons for why he might have arrived at my INVENTED version and you're getting a weed on?
He may still be wrong?
Yeah and he may be absofucking spot on.
Why get all cunty when we're BOTH guessing?
I don't know and (roll on the drums) NEITHER ARE YOU!
You also say..
"You're trying to put Anthony in the same position you tried to put me. He simply isn't saying what you want him to be saying. If he was saying that, you could be the enlightened good guy and smite him down from the high horse up there on your moral high ground and you'd feel great about yourself. Unfortunately for you that simply isn't what's happening here"
Imo, bullshit!
But fine, prove me wrong tell me what Anthony's..
"We all have to take responsibility for our own fortunes and misfortunes in the first instance" means.
Tell me how I 'misinterpreted' it (nb: I didn't!)
I (admittedly using sarcasm - no rule against that) pointed out that it seems crystal clear (to me) what it means.
I believe you are arguing fiddly, daft semantics to make a 'point' and (deliberately?) ignoring a very obvious bigger picture.
Another thing.
You also tell me "You tried to counter one of my arguments above and did it entirely ineffectively"
Well...possibly but..
1) It helps if you mention WHICH 'argument'
2) Keep in mind, on a forum like TW, it's not actually you (much as you would obviously love to) who decides who has an ineffective argument or not.
Oh and re your last paragraph - EVERY chance!
I don't know you, never met you, so I can ONLY judge on what you write on here.
That's EXACTLY what I have done.
Well all I can say is that I hope anyone else reading this understands what I'm saying, as you clearly don't.
How ironic that we have this thread and then Terry Connor gets the Wolves job till the end of the season. Good luck to him.
Ironic. That one person gets a job. Not really.
The problem is that now the fuss has been made about black managers, and Terry Connor gets a job the same week, there can be obvious question marks over what the motivation was for giving it to him.
If the fuss hadn't been made and he'd been given the job, then questioning it would have been completely unreasonable, but now those who see the world in a certain way (me and Anthony according to Eugene) might argue that he's only been given the chance because he's black. This completely undermines any attempt to treat everybody equally regardless of their skin colour.
I hope Terry Connor does well, especially as if he struggles then in the minds of the people Noel described right at the start of this thread it could legitimise their stereotyped viewpoints.
If the fuss hadn't been made and he'd been given the job, then questioning it would have been completely unreasonable, but now those who see the world in a certain way (me and Anthony according to Eugene) might argue that he's only been given the chance because he's black. This completely undermines any attempt to treat everybody equally regardless of their skin colour.
I hope Terry Connor does well, especially as if he struggles then in the minds of the people Noel described right at the start of this thread it could legitimise their stereotyped viewpoints.
Mike Allison (033) like I say, it says everything about how you view the world.
You say..
"The problem is that now the fuss has been made about black managers, and Terry Connor gets a job the same week, there can be obvious question marks over what the motivation was for giving it to him"
OBVIOUS question marks?
Er...none from me.
And you talk about 'The problem'?
What problem?
Fact, I see no problem and I have no problem.
You see the world as "Terry Connor gets a job"
I see it as Terry Connor is in charge of Wolves for 13 games.
(nb: a team who already look dead and buried, so his 'job' to me looks more like a chalice full of strychnine than the key to Nirvana).
And here's a question you don't ask - was he first choice?
(yes, in the context, it IS important)
Seems from what Morgan says, Steve Bruce actually got the nod and then (somehow) pissed on his chips over the contract (which could be anything, but likely to be something that would cost Wolves money - money they don't have or want to spend)
So to repeat I have (or see) no problem at all, regarding Connor and timing etc.
You say..
"The problem is that now the fuss has been made about black managers, and Terry Connor gets a job the same week, there can be obvious question marks over what the motivation was for giving it to him"
OBVIOUS question marks?
Er...none from me.
And you talk about 'The problem'?
What problem?
Fact, I see no problem and I have no problem.
You see the world as "Terry Connor gets a job"
I see it as Terry Connor is in charge of Wolves for 13 games.
(nb: a team who already look dead and buried, so his 'job' to me looks more like a chalice full of strychnine than the key to Nirvana).
And here's a question you don't ask - was he first choice?
(yes, in the context, it IS important)
Seems from what Morgan says, Steve Bruce actually got the nod and then (somehow) pissed on his chips over the contract (which could be anything, but likely to be something that would cost Wolves money - money they don't have or want to spend)
So to repeat I have (or see) no problem at all, regarding Connor and timing etc.
Ciaron, you really are a tit.
Mike Allison, 921, it is very rare I see such eloquent wisdom on football websites, and so I will repeat your sentiment for those who care to think about the world and not simply their personal agendas:
"You seem to be completely unable to grasp the idea that many non-racist people, who support anti-racist causes, still don't actually see racism everywhere. Racism still exists, and needs to be dealt with intelligently and effectively in a variety of ways relative to the variety of situations its found in. That doesn't mean it exists every single time somebody claims it exists."
Cheers
"You seem to be completely unable to grasp the idea that many non-racist people, who support anti-racist causes, still don't actually see racism everywhere. Racism still exists, and needs to be dealt with intelligently and effectively in a variety of ways relative to the variety of situations its found in. That doesn't mean it exists every single time somebody claims it exists."
Cheers
Have been reading with great interest this thread. Nope, still can't find find anything Positive about discrimination. The phrase "Positive Discrimination" reminds me of "Newspeak" from Orwells 1984.
It also reminds me of "women only" shortlists for parliament whereby merit is not taken into account but only gender.
Most women I've asked about this find it very patronising and despise the women who would take advantage. Same with a few ethnic people I've asked in regard to Black managers.
Whichever way you look at it, Merit should trump all else. If not, what's the point in working hard to be the best in your field.
For all the champions of the politically correct "Positive Discrimination", here's a "What would you do" scenario.
A loved one suffers a problem with their heart. A transplant is required. Because of hospital trust rules, you get to pick which surgeon will perform the operation.
Out of four surgeons three are white and one is black. After some research you find out that because of positive discrimination the black guy got the job. You also find out that there were many concerns regarding the lowering of standards in the past ten years and many people from all ethnic backgrounds were passing exams a little bit to easy.
The other three had worked for quite a few years but on the date of the op. two were on holiday. You are now left with a choice.
Do you choose the guy who has perfrormed this op many times and is there on merit? Or do you choose the guy who came via positive discrimination and is there patronisingly due to the colour of his skin?
On this particular topic, I've found the deeper you dig the less black and white it becomes.
COYB
It also reminds me of "women only" shortlists for parliament whereby merit is not taken into account but only gender.
Most women I've asked about this find it very patronising and despise the women who would take advantage. Same with a few ethnic people I've asked in regard to Black managers.
Whichever way you look at it, Merit should trump all else. If not, what's the point in working hard to be the best in your field.
For all the champions of the politically correct "Positive Discrimination", here's a "What would you do" scenario.
A loved one suffers a problem with their heart. A transplant is required. Because of hospital trust rules, you get to pick which surgeon will perform the operation.
Out of four surgeons three are white and one is black. After some research you find out that because of positive discrimination the black guy got the job. You also find out that there were many concerns regarding the lowering of standards in the past ten years and many people from all ethnic backgrounds were passing exams a little bit to easy.
The other three had worked for quite a few years but on the date of the op. two were on holiday. You are now left with a choice.
Do you choose the guy who has perfrormed this op many times and is there on merit? Or do you choose the guy who came via positive discrimination and is there patronisingly due to the colour of his skin?
On this particular topic, I've found the deeper you dig the less black and white it becomes.
COYB
Anthony (089) - It is rare I see such 'you-agree-with-me-and-I-agree-with-you' obsequiousness on football websites, so I will repeat it for those who love sanctimonious drivel.
"Mike Allison, 921, it is very rare I see such eloquent wisdom on football websites, and so I will repeat your sentiment for those who care to think about the world and not simply their personal agendas".
I would suggest you get a room, but no doubt this would lead to..
"I've nothing against gays but..."
"Mike Allison, 921, it is very rare I see such eloquent wisdom on football websites, and so I will repeat your sentiment for those who care to think about the world and not simply their personal agendas".
I would suggest you get a room, but no doubt this would lead to..
"I've nothing against gays but..."
Jon,
The argument is that the Black surgeon however merited it would be, would not be able to be in a position for you to pick him due to a prejudice against his race.
Positive discrimination is aimed at allowing those with merit access to positions they wouldn't normally be able to ascertain.
How would you feel if an inadequate surgeon botched an operation on a family member when there was a more qualified or able person who was not given an opportunity due to the job due to his race?
I personally don't believe this will work or is needed in English football but I understand how it may in certain sectors.
The argument is that the Black surgeon however merited it would be, would not be able to be in a position for you to pick him due to a prejudice against his race.
Positive discrimination is aimed at allowing those with merit access to positions they wouldn't normally be able to ascertain.
How would you feel if an inadequate surgeon botched an operation on a family member when there was a more qualified or able person who was not given an opportunity due to the job due to his race?
I personally don't believe this will work or is needed in English football but I understand how it may in certain sectors.
Eugene you're embarrassing.
For the record, I personally do not believe Terry Connor's race had anything to do with his appointment. I see it that Wolves went after quite a few experienced managers, couldn't get any of them, and decided to give the no.2 the chance to step up when they ran out of other options. This has been done a number of times in the past at other clubs. It is cheaper and allows them to appoint someone they really want in the long term in the summer when people are more available. Conversely, if the no.2 does well they can give him the job (and its still cheaper). As I say, this isn't an uncommon process in football.
The 'fuss' does, however, undermine the appointment, at the very least in the minds of BNP types who believe this country panders to ethnic minorities (there used to be a guy called Kevin something, I think Spencer, who used to come on Toffeeweb and spout that shit. Any time race came up as an issue on a thread, he'd show up and talk about how the liberal media had 'pulled the wool over our eyes' and stuff like that. I'm pretty sure I, along with Mr Kenrick and maybe some others, saw him off for good once after showing him up quite badly on one particular thread) and possibly in the minds of other people as well.
If you can't see any logic in that you're trying very, very hard indeed to think in a politically correct way. I wonder why you feel the need to.
I know that I'm not racist Eugene, I don't feel the need to prove that in every stance I take or post I make and feel comfortable enough to say it how I see it, even when that leads the likes of you to completely mistake my point. You still don't really get what's being said here, and are continuing to project views onto me that I don't hold.
How do you know I'm not gay, or black, or married to someone from an ethnic minority?
And Stephen, that's kind of the point, race should play NO PART AT ALL (not shouting, can't do bold) in making such decisions, and positive discrimination doesn't solve that problem, it adds to it. (I did mention above I understand positive discrimination has had its uses, but I am against in general and on principle).
For the record, I personally do not believe Terry Connor's race had anything to do with his appointment. I see it that Wolves went after quite a few experienced managers, couldn't get any of them, and decided to give the no.2 the chance to step up when they ran out of other options. This has been done a number of times in the past at other clubs. It is cheaper and allows them to appoint someone they really want in the long term in the summer when people are more available. Conversely, if the no.2 does well they can give him the job (and its still cheaper). As I say, this isn't an uncommon process in football.
The 'fuss' does, however, undermine the appointment, at the very least in the minds of BNP types who believe this country panders to ethnic minorities (there used to be a guy called Kevin something, I think Spencer, who used to come on Toffeeweb and spout that shit. Any time race came up as an issue on a thread, he'd show up and talk about how the liberal media had 'pulled the wool over our eyes' and stuff like that. I'm pretty sure I, along with Mr Kenrick and maybe some others, saw him off for good once after showing him up quite badly on one particular thread) and possibly in the minds of other people as well.
If you can't see any logic in that you're trying very, very hard indeed to think in a politically correct way. I wonder why you feel the need to.
I know that I'm not racist Eugene, I don't feel the need to prove that in every stance I take or post I make and feel comfortable enough to say it how I see it, even when that leads the likes of you to completely mistake my point. You still don't really get what's being said here, and are continuing to project views onto me that I don't hold.
How do you know I'm not gay, or black, or married to someone from an ethnic minority?
And Stephen, that's kind of the point, race should play NO PART AT ALL (not shouting, can't do bold) in making such decisions, and positive discrimination doesn't solve that problem, it adds to it. (I did mention above I understand positive discrimination has had its uses, but I am against in general and on principle).
The hypocrisy of this muppet's posts is laughable...
"the PM in question is a chinless, moon-faced toff cunt like 'call me Dave,'"
"What do you mean ‘cheers‘ - I‘d NEVER drink with a fucking Welshman or anyone with a Welsh name!"
"I think it CAN be said to be the fault of anyone ('from the entirety of human history') from one ethnic group, discriminating against those from another."
So, to summarise this clown believes it is OKAY to show PREJUDICE against people because of THEIR FACE and THEIR UPBRINGING, or indeed THEIR NAME.
But the final statement is the clincher. Apparently, discrimination by some is the fault of all members of the race to which the discriminators belong.
Eugene, I believe this makes you a RACIST!
Cheers
"the PM in question is a chinless, moon-faced toff cunt like 'call me Dave,'"
"What do you mean ‘cheers‘ - I‘d NEVER drink with a fucking Welshman or anyone with a Welsh name!"
"I think it CAN be said to be the fault of anyone ('from the entirety of human history') from one ethnic group, discriminating against those from another."
So, to summarise this clown believes it is OKAY to show PREJUDICE against people because of THEIR FACE and THEIR UPBRINGING, or indeed THEIR NAME.
But the final statement is the clincher. Apparently, discrimination by some is the fault of all members of the race to which the discriminators belong.
Eugene, I believe this makes you a RACIST!
Cheers
Jon Cox (093) - Why does the notion of positive discrimination exist?
You say..
"Whichever way you look at it, Merit should trump all else. If not, what's the point in working hard to be the best in your field".
Well fine and dandy, but as the saying goes 'fine words butter no parsnips'.
In theory of course, that sentiment IS right (theoretically, nothing could be MORE right).
But theory and practice are (and have been) two VERY different things.
60 years ago, 'we' had the chance NOT to discriminate (yes I AM generalising - I can't speak for every individual back then) and...'we' didn't take it.
Instead 'we' DID discriminate - in work, in sport, in life in general.
These days of course things are million times better, but this assumption (and it IS being assumed if you follow some of the arguments on this thread) 'it's sorted, everything is equal for everyone now', is imo, TOTAL bollocks.
Your ('get out of that!') scenario misses one important/essential detail.
You say..
"Out of four surgeons three are white and one is black. After some research you find out that because of positive discrimination the black guy got the job".
My question is, why was if felt the black guy NEEDED help?
Why wasn't it the three WHITE guys who needed help?
You also don't say whether the black doctor had EXACTLY the same chances in his life from day one (relevant as THAT would be fair!)
You don't say whether he had suffered any form of discrimination re college or whatever.
Maybe he applied to one of the 21 Oxbridge colleges who took no black students last year (yes this IS fantasy, but no more than your hypothetical hozzy)
Earlier on this thread I posted what I consider a staggering statistic (ignored completely by the Littlejohns interested only in 'winning').
It was that out of 14,000 British professors, only 50 are black.
THAT is all about 'merit'?
Does that REALLY say 'it's the same for everyone'?
(yes statistics CAN be a load of shite but that's pretty damning)
Positive discrimination is NOT about saying 'Hey everything is equal, but let's give the black guy an advantage' (as it seems to have been simplistically interpreted by many).
It is about attempting to even things up a little - where possible.
It is about trying to tackle an imbalance - where possible.
It is saying this/that group of people HAVE been discriminated against, maybe we can at least try to even things up - where possible.
Is that REALLY insane/nuts/an outrage etc?
And if I'm talking shite, I go back to my first question - why DOES positive discrimination exist at all?
Because things are...equal?
Because of mad lefties can't leave well alone.
Really?
The reality is, ideas like positive discrimination (admittedly an idea not perfect by any means) only exist BECAUSE...there is negative discrimination.
Now...back to the Guardian.
You say..
"Whichever way you look at it, Merit should trump all else. If not, what's the point in working hard to be the best in your field".
Well fine and dandy, but as the saying goes 'fine words butter no parsnips'.
In theory of course, that sentiment IS right (theoretically, nothing could be MORE right).
But theory and practice are (and have been) two VERY different things.
60 years ago, 'we' had the chance NOT to discriminate (yes I AM generalising - I can't speak for every individual back then) and...'we' didn't take it.
Instead 'we' DID discriminate - in work, in sport, in life in general.
These days of course things are million times better, but this assumption (and it IS being assumed if you follow some of the arguments on this thread) 'it's sorted, everything is equal for everyone now', is imo, TOTAL bollocks.
Your ('get out of that!') scenario misses one important/essential detail.
You say..
"Out of four surgeons three are white and one is black. After some research you find out that because of positive discrimination the black guy got the job".
My question is, why was if felt the black guy NEEDED help?
Why wasn't it the three WHITE guys who needed help?
You also don't say whether the black doctor had EXACTLY the same chances in his life from day one (relevant as THAT would be fair!)
You don't say whether he had suffered any form of discrimination re college or whatever.
Maybe he applied to one of the 21 Oxbridge colleges who took no black students last year (yes this IS fantasy, but no more than your hypothetical hozzy)
Earlier on this thread I posted what I consider a staggering statistic (ignored completely by the Littlejohns interested only in 'winning').
It was that out of 14,000 British professors, only 50 are black.
THAT is all about 'merit'?
Does that REALLY say 'it's the same for everyone'?
(yes statistics CAN be a load of shite but that's pretty damning)
Positive discrimination is NOT about saying 'Hey everything is equal, but let's give the black guy an advantage' (as it seems to have been simplistically interpreted by many).
It is about attempting to even things up a little - where possible.
It is about trying to tackle an imbalance - where possible.
It is saying this/that group of people HAVE been discriminated against, maybe we can at least try to even things up - where possible.
Is that REALLY insane/nuts/an outrage etc?
And if I'm talking shite, I go back to my first question - why DOES positive discrimination exist at all?
Because things are...equal?
Because of mad lefties can't leave well alone.
Really?
The reality is, ideas like positive discrimination (admittedly an idea not perfect by any means) only exist BECAUSE...there is negative discrimination.
Now...back to the Guardian.
Anthony. Not being funny, but I don't think you can be pejudiced against a multi-millionaire, eton educated politician, who has never, in his fuckin' life, had to struggle or fight for anything. Has had everything handed to him because he belongs to a class that was ''born to rule''. Moon faced toff cunt!
Just saying like.
Just saying like.
Anthony Jones(123) - I was once in the outpatients dept and there was a feller there who had badly scalded his feet.
When I asked him what had happened, he said he was making a sponge pudding and it said on the instructions 'stand in boiling water'.
Was that you?
The reason I ask is your 'gift' for taking things literally is staggering.
(nb: by the way, even though it is written down, that didn't REALLY happen)
When I asked him what had happened, he said he was making a sponge pudding and it said on the instructions 'stand in boiling water'.
Was that you?
The reason I ask is your 'gift' for taking things literally is staggering.
(nb: by the way, even though it is written down, that didn't REALLY happen)
Anyone who thinks that positive discrimination is wrong, or should I say always wrong, should look at Northern Ireland over the past twenty years. It can and did make huge, vital and life saving changes.
Mike Allison (121) You ask..
"How do you know I'm not gay, or black, or married to someone from an ethnic minority?"
Well..erm..of course I don't.
But let me assure you, if you WERE gay, or black, or married to someone from an ethnic minority, It wouldn't make any difference to me and I would NEVER discriminate.
Whatever your sexuality, or the ethnic background of you or your spouse, I'd still think you JUST as full of factless waffle and re-hashed Richard Littlejohn-style bollocks as I do now.
"How do you know I'm not gay, or black, or married to someone from an ethnic minority?"
Well..erm..of course I don't.
But let me assure you, if you WERE gay, or black, or married to someone from an ethnic minority, It wouldn't make any difference to me and I would NEVER discriminate.
Whatever your sexuality, or the ethnic background of you or your spouse, I'd still think you JUST as full of factless waffle and re-hashed Richard Littlejohn-style bollocks as I do now.
"It was that out of 14,000 British professors, only 50 are black.
THAT is all about 'merit'?"
Maybe it is, I don't have a clue. Neither do you. Maybe its more about wealth and social class than race. How many are from working class backgrounds? How many Asian professors are there? How many professors are there from overseas? How many professors who were the first from their family to gain a degree? I didn't ignore it before, I pointed out it was selective and nothing concrete can be gleaned from it. More importantly I'd like to know who does it damn? And for what exact reason?
What is Richard Littlejohn about me?! That's genuinely really funny. You wish that's who we were, but I've already made this point. I think you need to read through this thread again and try to work out what people are really saying. Give some exact examples of what I've said and what you've inferred from them. In fact, it would be amusing if you told me what you think I think, as you seem to be a long way away from it at the moment.
Funny thing is, you actually have a reasonable argument that you could be making, but you're making it like a complete idiot. You ask some reasonable questions in your most recent post. Maybe black people do have it harder in Britain, I've never said they don't (read the posts Eugene, don't just project) but like I said before, who should be taking the blame and what should we be doing about it? I would also counter that maybe its "people of lower incomes who's parents didn't go to university" who have it harder in Britain, regardless of race, and that more black people as a proportion fit that category than white people. Your rhetorical questions are worth asking, but you are assuming one specific answer and building from there, whereas that is not necessarily the case. Pointing out where people's arguments or assumptions are flawed is all I've really done for the most part, so I really don't get you're accusation of factless waffle. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've pointing that out of you actually. You've assumed that because I don't agree with you I hold some diametrically opposed point of view, which I don't. In a general anti-racism campaign situation, we're on the same side, I just see you as the kind of extremist idiot with a complete lack of sophistication in his understanding of the situation who undermines the sensible work the rest of us do.
And by the way, yet another spectacular missing of the point. I asked those questions of you not see if you would discriminate against me, that's completely irrelevant, but because I'm wondering why you're so sure I'm prejudiced.
THAT is all about 'merit'?"
Maybe it is, I don't have a clue. Neither do you. Maybe its more about wealth and social class than race. How many are from working class backgrounds? How many Asian professors are there? How many professors are there from overseas? How many professors who were the first from their family to gain a degree? I didn't ignore it before, I pointed out it was selective and nothing concrete can be gleaned from it. More importantly I'd like to know who does it damn? And for what exact reason?
What is Richard Littlejohn about me?! That's genuinely really funny. You wish that's who we were, but I've already made this point. I think you need to read through this thread again and try to work out what people are really saying. Give some exact examples of what I've said and what you've inferred from them. In fact, it would be amusing if you told me what you think I think, as you seem to be a long way away from it at the moment.
Funny thing is, you actually have a reasonable argument that you could be making, but you're making it like a complete idiot. You ask some reasonable questions in your most recent post. Maybe black people do have it harder in Britain, I've never said they don't (read the posts Eugene, don't just project) but like I said before, who should be taking the blame and what should we be doing about it? I would also counter that maybe its "people of lower incomes who's parents didn't go to university" who have it harder in Britain, regardless of race, and that more black people as a proportion fit that category than white people. Your rhetorical questions are worth asking, but you are assuming one specific answer and building from there, whereas that is not necessarily the case. Pointing out where people's arguments or assumptions are flawed is all I've really done for the most part, so I really don't get you're accusation of factless waffle. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've pointing that out of you actually. You've assumed that because I don't agree with you I hold some diametrically opposed point of view, which I don't. In a general anti-racism campaign situation, we're on the same side, I just see you as the kind of extremist idiot with a complete lack of sophistication in his understanding of the situation who undermines the sensible work the rest of us do.
And by the way, yet another spectacular missing of the point. I asked those questions of you not see if you would discriminate against me, that's completely irrelevant, but because I'm wondering why you're so sure I'm prejudiced.
Mike Allison (134)- You say..
"I'm wondering why you're so sure I'm prejudiced".
Well ok fair enough, let's first establish there are levels of prejudice (agreed?).
So that said, I DON'T think you're a Klansman or a member of C18 or hold extreme views and I'm sure YOU believe yourself ABSOLUTELY fair and even-handed.
Plus I don't know you so, I can ONLY go on the content of your posts (agreed?).
So with that (hopefully) agreed on (and with you having a good idea of how I see things) let's take a look at a few of YOUR comments.
(yes I accept they HAVE been taken out of context but..they are all yours).
Then when you've looked at them, try to put yourself in my position (nb: remember, me who doesn't know you and is only going on what I've read).
"You might just a well ask why white people (or Asians) are statistically so under-represented amongst professional players whilst black players are massively over represented as a proportion of the population".
"I am arguing that it could just as easily be that the perception exists entirely in the minds of the Les Ferdinand's of this world who see it as an excuse not to work hard, take a risk and try something they might fail at".
"I also agree that of the two or three highest profile in British football, John Barnes, Paul Ince and Ruud Gullit, all were given jobs above their qualifications and experience and none did those jobs particularly well".
"Where society as a whole needs to deal with racism problems, that effort is positively harmed by: 1) false accusations of racism. 2) people of ethnic minorities adopting a victim culture and assuming nothing can be their fault because they never had a chance and 3) People looking for racism where none exists because it either suits their personal agenda or allows them to adopt a position where they believe they have moral high ground over anyone who doesn't agree with them".
"The problem is that now the fuss has been made about black managers, and Terry Connor gets a job the same week, there can be obvious question marks over what the motivation was for giving it to him".
So going on the only thing I can go on (agreed?), I think you are on the defensive. I think you look at things like positive discrimination and cry 'unfair' while blocking out or ignoring what is REALLY unfair (yeah you pay it lip service but it's not what's getting you hot under the collar).
I believe you don't think things through and instead simply react, in this specific case of positive discrimination, like a child seeing someone else getting a bigger ice-cream. 'It's not fair'.
I don't KNOW this and I accept I could be COMPLETELY wrong, but you DID ask and going on your posts, that is my conclusion.
"I'm wondering why you're so sure I'm prejudiced".
Well ok fair enough, let's first establish there are levels of prejudice (agreed?).
So that said, I DON'T think you're a Klansman or a member of C18 or hold extreme views and I'm sure YOU believe yourself ABSOLUTELY fair and even-handed.
Plus I don't know you so, I can ONLY go on the content of your posts (agreed?).
So with that (hopefully) agreed on (and with you having a good idea of how I see things) let's take a look at a few of YOUR comments.
(yes I accept they HAVE been taken out of context but..they are all yours).
Then when you've looked at them, try to put yourself in my position (nb: remember, me who doesn't know you and is only going on what I've read).
"You might just a well ask why white people (or Asians) are statistically so under-represented amongst professional players whilst black players are massively over represented as a proportion of the population".
"I am arguing that it could just as easily be that the perception exists entirely in the minds of the Les Ferdinand's of this world who see it as an excuse not to work hard, take a risk and try something they might fail at".
"I also agree that of the two or three highest profile in British football, John Barnes, Paul Ince and Ruud Gullit, all were given jobs above their qualifications and experience and none did those jobs particularly well".
"Where society as a whole needs to deal with racism problems, that effort is positively harmed by: 1) false accusations of racism. 2) people of ethnic minorities adopting a victim culture and assuming nothing can be their fault because they never had a chance and 3) People looking for racism where none exists because it either suits their personal agenda or allows them to adopt a position where they believe they have moral high ground over anyone who doesn't agree with them".
"The problem is that now the fuss has been made about black managers, and Terry Connor gets a job the same week, there can be obvious question marks over what the motivation was for giving it to him".
So going on the only thing I can go on (agreed?), I think you are on the defensive. I think you look at things like positive discrimination and cry 'unfair' while blocking out or ignoring what is REALLY unfair (yeah you pay it lip service but it's not what's getting you hot under the collar).
I believe you don't think things through and instead simply react, in this specific case of positive discrimination, like a child seeing someone else getting a bigger ice-cream. 'It's not fair'.
I don't KNOW this and I accept I could be COMPLETELY wrong, but you DID ask and going on your posts, that is my conclusion.
I'll tell you what's fucking unfair!
There aren't enough Jones prime ministers or surgeons or astronauts! It's Jonesism of the highest order. Anyone who asks me whether I actually trained for or applied to work in these professions is on the defensive and is a closet Jonesist! Just look at all the statistics! If you don't agree with me then you don't think things through and simply react. I deserve these jobs because it will make the world a fairer place. If you disagree you're just like a child seeing someone else getting a bigger ice-cream.
Wow, it's fun being an ignorrant tit.
There aren't enough Jones prime ministers or surgeons or astronauts! It's Jonesism of the highest order. Anyone who asks me whether I actually trained for or applied to work in these professions is on the defensive and is a closet Jonesist! Just look at all the statistics! If you don't agree with me then you don't think things through and simply react. I deserve these jobs because it will make the world a fairer place. If you disagree you're just like a child seeing someone else getting a bigger ice-cream.
Wow, it's fun being an ignorrant tit.
And finally,
Best comment I heard on this debate was from the icon known as John Barnes on Football Focus one day, he said, "I've been banging on about more black managers in football until I'm blue in the face".
I kid you not.
Best comment I heard on this debate was from the icon known as John Barnes on Football Focus one day, he said, "I've been banging on about more black managers in football until I'm blue in the face".
I kid you not.
Anthony Jones (139) - (stifles laughter) I feel for you, I REALLY do. You wrote all that hil-AIR-iously funny stuff, then finished with the zinger - 'an ignorrant tit'. You must have smiled to yourself and thought 'That'll learn him!'. Maybe you lit up a ciggy or cracked open a can. But..wait. What is THAT!? Oh no, that's not how you spell ignorant! Oh shite, any other word but not THAT one. That just makes it like being called fatty..by Cyril Smith. D'OH!! Hoist..etc.
Sorry Eugene, I meant you are an ignorant tit, my mistake.
Regards my thinking "that'll learn him", I thought nothing of the sort. You seem to know it all already.
Cheers
Regards my thinking "that'll learn him", I thought nothing of the sort. You seem to know it all already.
Cheers
I still don't get your point Eugene, what do those quotes show? It seems pretty clear you haven't got many of mine.
As for me not thinking things through, again, hilarious. Right up there with the Richard Littlejohn thing. (ie. kind of the opposite of the way things actually are). I can only see this as a failure on my part to explain myself adequately, or maybe you're so enjoying riding a moral high horse your view is obscured.
I'll try to spell out the positive discrimination point. I'm not against it simply because I think it is unfair on white people, I'm against it because it is divisive, causes resentment, and officially treats people differently because of their race, which I think is a bad thing. It has negative consequences (for all involved, including those who have been positively discriminated in favour of*) which in some very specific circumstances may have been outweighed by the positive consequences, but in the case of English football I believe it would be massively inappropriate to the situation.
Many people for whom positive discrimination might work in their favour feel the same way. We should be trying to make society fairer, but in terms of trying to do that, I believe it is not the correct strategy. Is that clear enough?!
Did you notice how I don't hold the view that 'its all sorted now, we don't need to worry about it anymore'? I couldn't find your exact quote, but that is roughly one of the many phrases you've attempted to ascribe to me during the course of this thread.
My posts have not been asserting my own point of view as if it was fact. I have constantly been trying to demonstrate to you that your interpretation, in particular of statistics, is entirely inadequate as an attempt to draw accurate conclusions. You think I think lots of things that I don't think, because you haven't understood, even when I've made it clear, that I was doing this. This is why I thought your 'factless waffle' comment earlier was so apt, as I haven't really tried to assert facts, simply pointed out that you weren't doing so when you seemed to think you were.
*consider the example of a black person getting a job he deserves in a post where positive discrimination is in place. He may doubt his own credentials, and others will have cause to doubt his worthiness for the job, even though he really was the best man (or wheelchair bound lesbian) for the job.
As for me not thinking things through, again, hilarious. Right up there with the Richard Littlejohn thing. (ie. kind of the opposite of the way things actually are). I can only see this as a failure on my part to explain myself adequately, or maybe you're so enjoying riding a moral high horse your view is obscured.
I'll try to spell out the positive discrimination point. I'm not against it simply because I think it is unfair on white people, I'm against it because it is divisive, causes resentment, and officially treats people differently because of their race, which I think is a bad thing. It has negative consequences (for all involved, including those who have been positively discriminated in favour of*) which in some very specific circumstances may have been outweighed by the positive consequences, but in the case of English football I believe it would be massively inappropriate to the situation.
Many people for whom positive discrimination might work in their favour feel the same way. We should be trying to make society fairer, but in terms of trying to do that, I believe it is not the correct strategy. Is that clear enough?!
Did you notice how I don't hold the view that 'its all sorted now, we don't need to worry about it anymore'? I couldn't find your exact quote, but that is roughly one of the many phrases you've attempted to ascribe to me during the course of this thread.
My posts have not been asserting my own point of view as if it was fact. I have constantly been trying to demonstrate to you that your interpretation, in particular of statistics, is entirely inadequate as an attempt to draw accurate conclusions. You think I think lots of things that I don't think, because you haven't understood, even when I've made it clear, that I was doing this. This is why I thought your 'factless waffle' comment earlier was so apt, as I haven't really tried to assert facts, simply pointed out that you weren't doing so when you seemed to think you were.
*consider the example of a black person getting a job he deserves in a post where positive discrimination is in place. He may doubt his own credentials, and others will have cause to doubt his worthiness for the job, even though he really was the best man (or wheelchair bound lesbian) for the job.
Positive discrimination gives you a better chance at the job than you would have had if it weren't there... one step forward?
Hopefully, your performance once in the job will allow you to keep the job and thus positive discrimination is vindicated... two steps forward?
But if you fail, having been given the chance over maybe better places candidates, imo that then becomes four steps back.
The first 2 steps are wiped off the board.
The third step back is that your failure reflects poorly on your minority group; see, all Jones are crap.
The forth step back is that the chance that might be given by having positive discrimination may be then with-held from some one who might actually benefit.
So for that reason I don't think it is a good thing. It can lead to all sorts of decisions being made that are in of themselves wrong but based on the last decision made have a sort of inevitability about them. People start forgetting that two (or three, four, five) wrongs don't make a right.
Hopefully, your performance once in the job will allow you to keep the job and thus positive discrimination is vindicated... two steps forward?
But if you fail, having been given the chance over maybe better places candidates, imo that then becomes four steps back.
The first 2 steps are wiped off the board.
The third step back is that your failure reflects poorly on your minority group; see, all Jones are crap.
The forth step back is that the chance that might be given by having positive discrimination may be then with-held from some one who might actually benefit.
So for that reason I don't think it is a good thing. It can lead to all sorts of decisions being made that are in of themselves wrong but based on the last decision made have a sort of inevitability about them. People start forgetting that two (or three, four, five) wrongs don't make a right.
To acknowledge that positive discrimination is needed (regardless of whether it has any merit) is to acknowledge that discrimination exists at every level, which it does... FACT!
This thread proves it... after all, this thread wouldn't exist if everything was rosy, would it?
It's sad that the vast majority of clubs in the PL and football leagues (even though most of them are over 100 years old) could still carry the headline, xxxxxxx Appoints First Black Manager.
This thread proves it... after all, this thread wouldn't exist if everything was rosy, would it?
It's sad that the vast majority of clubs in the PL and football leagues (even though most of them are over 100 years old) could still carry the headline, xxxxxxx Appoints First Black Manager.
Anthony Jones, after the Rev Jim done such a bad job at Jonestown, I don't think you lot have a chance of running a bath
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.
© ToffeeWeb
Top of the Page
616 Posted 22/02/2012 at 17:43:50
Report abuse
1. Many football clubs are ran by (boards of directors) gentlemen who can be politely described as middle aged, and as such, these - mostly white - men are of a certain generation where a greater proportion of the population are or remain inherently suspicious of anyone different to them. For example, they may subconsciously consider black people to be lazier than white people. And while none of them would admit to this, or even realise outwardly that they feel it, prejudices that have been ingrained over years and years are very hard to shake. The Rooney ruling at least gives black managers the opportunity to overcome these prejudices by promoting themselves on a face-to-face basis at the interview stage. Of course I can't back any of this up with cold hard evidence, it's just a suspicion.
2. If a similar ruling is introduced, why stop at just black males? — there could also be scope to ensure at least one candidate is Asian, Irish, Jewish, Muslim, female, homosexual etc.