Ron Atkinson's blunder

[theshire]

OK, this applies mainly to UK members, but it does make a for a good universal discussion.

Basically, for anyone who doesn't know, Ron Atkinson is an English soccer commentator who, while off-air, said to a fellow commentator that Chelsea's French defender, Marcel Desailly was: "a fucking lazy, thick ************." The problem was that this particular game was being transmitted in the Middle-East, and the feed was still coming, so thousands of people heard it. He immediately resigned.

Now here's the question: was he right to resign? Here are my views, which are perhaps controversial, but it's what I believe:

Ron Atkinson was right to resign rather than be sacked, because he knew the consequences of what he had done - he had caused widespread offence.

But really, I think that racism has gone mad in this country. EVERYTHING is racist. It's not that if I was critising Marcel Desailly, the first word I would use would be '************', but think of it this way.

On the street, you could go up to some random person and call them a "fucking lazy, thick slaphead".
You could call them a "fucking lazy, thick four-eyes"
You could call them a "fucking lazy, thick, fat bastard".

Now my point is: none of those people could take you to court for what you just said to them; nor would they want to. They'd just smack you in the mouth. 😉 😛 What makes racist abuse any different? What Ron Atkinson said is no different to what footballers get during games from the fans, yet he's had to lose his job over it.

Not that I'm condoning what he said; it was stupid ad immature, but I hate the way this country is going. It is filled with white Lefties who think that they're so good-spirited that they take more offense from racist abuse than the minorities who are being abused do.

Who's with me?

 

[MrMacphisto]

While I'm a "white Lefty" myself, I know what you're talking about. In America, there is a similar problem with political correctness. I'm all for racial equality, and I think affirmative action is still necessary in certain areas of the country, but even I'm willing to admit that the touchiness of race in this country is anything but sincere. Liberals use race as a political issue for personal gain almost as much as conservatives use religion for the same purposes.

To use my own town as an example, I live in a large metropolitan area in North Carolina. One of our city council commissioners decided to wear a shirt at a city council meeting showing the Calvin character (from Calvin & Hobbes) pissing on the NAACP. Needless to say, this really "pissed off" a lot of people. While the guy had the freedom to wear this shirt because of the 1st Amendment, it was still a very stupid thing to do. First of all, my town is probably 50% black. You could get away with wearing that shirt in someplace like Wyoming, since there's mostly white people there, but to do it here is just political suicide. You see, as I said before, he has the right to wear the shirt, but the people have the right to kick him out of office. This guy wasn't thinking very clearly, unless it was his goal to get kicked out. Of course, the usual political correctness arose as well, with various politicians (both liberals and conservatives) jumping on the bandwagon of forcing this guy out of office.

Simply put, political correctness only has a value in the "common sense" aspect. You have the right to be as prejudiced as you want in this country, but if you're dumb enough to express this sentiment in front of minorities (or blatantly in the workplace), you should expect some trouble. Think about what would've happened to this guy, if he had worn the same shirt in the middle of an Oakland ghetto. He probably would've been beaten or shot to death. I'm not saying he would deserve such a beating or shooting, but he would have to see it coming.

As a final note, it is unfortunate that racism is sometimes a one-way street. For example, the Dave Chappelle Show is free to make fun of white people (and even black people or other minorities) all it wants to, because Dave Chappelle is black himself. Yet, if Dave was white, his show would be labeled as racist. The irony of this is that a lot of the writers for his show are white. So, it actually is ok for white people to make fun of minorities, as long as black people (or other minorities) are acting it out. Don't get me wrong though; I actually REALLY like the Dave Chappelle Show, because it's funny as hell.

Perhaps, this Ron Atkinson guy should be replaced by Rowan Atkinson to liven things up at the soccer games. I'm sure some Black Adder references would keep the telly audience in stitches.

 

[theshire]

As a final note, it is unfortunate that racism is sometimes a one-way street. For example, the Dave Chappelle Show is free to make fun of white people (and even black people or other minorities) all it wants to, because Dave Chappelle is black himself. Yet, if Dave was white, his show would be labeled as racist. The irony of this is that a lot of the writers for his show are white. So, it actually is ok for white people to make fun of minorities, as long as black people (or other minorities) are acting it out.

EXACTLY. That's another thing that really pisses me off. The most discriminated against person in the UK is the average white male, because they can offend ANYONE: women, blacks, asians, etc. So everyone is against the white male dominating the country because he can offend them. But they are allowed to offend him with no bad effects. Ridiculous? Of course.

As I said earlier, I don't encourage racial abuse at all; it is not nice. But the fact that if a fat Pakistani man was irking you, it would be OK to call him a fat bastard but not Paki scum, for example, is just plain ludicrous.

Again, I have nothing against Pakistanis. 😉

 

[MrMacphisto]

EXACTLY. That's another thing that really pisses me off. The most discriminated against person in the UK is the average white male, because they can offend ANYONE: women, blacks, asians, etc. So everyone is against the white male dominating the country because he can offend them. But they are allowed to offend him with no bad effects. Ridiculous? Of course.

The irony of this is that, despite the overall image of white males being unable to say anything to women or minorities that is offensive, white males still have the power in both England and America. Most CEOs and corporate board members are white males. Most legislative and executive politicians are white males. Even most media organizations are run by white males, but the point I'm getting at is that this political correctness is just an image. If you want to run a society in such a way that, on the surface, everything looks ok and "fair" toward women and minorities, you have to keep up an image that you actually give a shit about them. You're fighting for their rights as citizens if you publicly condemn discrimination against them. Of course, this is just a facade.

The real way to determine if a politician or individual gives a shit about women and minorities is to look at how they vote and how they pass policies. A lot of people say that welfare for the poor should be abolished in the U.S., but at the same time, they don't condemn the corporate welfare our government regularly indulges in. Whether these people realize it or not, they act in such a way that they don't give a shit about single mothers or minorities. Another example are the people who are against abortion but for the death penalty. They say that the "unborn shouldn't be slaughtered," but at the same time, they're ok with the fact that a significant number of innocent people are executed by the death penalty and that minorities disproportionately face this sentence more often than white convicts....

In short, it's a matter of inconsistency.... We pretend that we give a shit about civil rights, but in practice, we often neglect them. To be more specific, it's not just white males that are discriminated against, it's white males that aren't rich. The rich white males have it as good as they always have (and probably always will). In theory, poor and middle class American white males should be the most fiercely Democratic voters out there, in order to protest this superficial, politically correct world that we've been subjected to by the rich white males in power. Of course, this will never happen, because we focus too much on racial issues and not enough on income class issues....

 

[red indian]

Whats in a word?...........

......it all bores down to what the word (************) actually means to most people. I would suggest that to call someone "a fat bastard" or "a speccy twat" or similar forms of personal abuse, is clearly unpleasant and meant to be hurtfull and disrespectfull( Lets put aside how these expressions may be used between friends for now).

The difference between these common forms of abuse, and using the word "************" is that it is a racial statement, and carries with it the clear inference that the user (when white) is suggesting that the recipient is of a lower caste or status. It suggests that that person is in someway sub-human, and congenitally inferior to whites.

I dont think this explanation of the word ************ can be argued with.You may of course flesh it out with references to exploitation,the slave trade and so on.

This is clearly abuse of a very different nature to calling someone fat or short sighted. You can go on a diet, you can get contacts or not wear the glasses, but you can not change the colour of your skin and you can not ignore the implications behind the word "************"


So I must dissagree with your analogy on that point Mr Shire, but i very much aggree with you about the expression "White middle class male" not the handiest of epithets I grant you! but it is increasingly accepted as a common term of abuse and to be one means you carry with you defacto all the implied characteristics.


I once applied for a grant for a music project at "East Midlands Arts", when I met the bloke who was in charge of the fund he told me and my fellow musicians that he would not be handing out money to "any project consisting of only white middle class males". He had no interest in the merits of the project itself or the quality of the musicians involved.

The thing that angered me most about this politically correct nazi was that he was clearly implying that I was a racist becuase I only had white males in the band.Surely racial stereo typing of this kind is plain wrong no matter if you are black or white.No doubt he would never dream of saying to a bunch of rappers from leicester "sorry lads, no blacks allowed".


This kind of nazi style pc sermonising is now being exploited to the full in order to excuse all kinds of behaviour. Look at Mugabe in Zimbabwe, as soon as anyone challenges him about the genocide currently underway in his country or the abuse of the electoral system or the missuse of international aid, he pulls the race card.

 

[theshire]

it all bores down to what the word (************) actually means to most people. I would suggest that to call someone "a fat bastard" or "a speccy twat" or similar forms of personal abuse, is clearly unpleasant and meant to be hurtfull and disrespectfull( Lets put aside how these expressions may be used between friends for now).
The difference between these common forms of abuse, and using the word "************" is that it is a racial statement, and carries with it the clear inference that the user (when white) is suggesting that the recipient is of a lower caste or status. It suggests that that person is in someway sub-human, and congenitally inferior to whites.

But then so do "fat bastard" and speccy twat.

And I would have to disagree on your point about not being able to change the colour of your skin. Not the actual point itself, obviously 🙂p ), but essentially that means nothing in the context of the abuse. All of these phrases are equally abusive, yet they are not treated equally. That is the issue here.