BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 28,012
An Anti-White Racist yourself then? Anyone who uses the term Gammon generally is.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Media persecution of Raheem Sterling
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
An Anti-White Racist yourself then? Anyone who uses the term Gammon generally is.
An Anti-White Racist yourself then? Anyone who uses the term Gammon generally is.
Not sure what you're saying. I'm not a big fan of Piers Morgan or Ammon Holmes if that helps. Not a big fan of the established using their power & position to bully either. I have no problem with any race or religion, nor do I consider every white middle aged man a Gammon or anything else for that matter.
Sounds like you have no problem generalising though.
Last edited:
Agree with this.An Anti-White Racist yourself then? Anyone who uses the term Gammon generally is.
At Liverpool we've had our own controversy when we defended Suarez against Evra. I think we were wrong btw.
But I dont see any racism in thecmedias targetting Sterling. Calling ex Liverpool fc pundits Gammon is bordering on racism and hardly useful to progressing the conversation :(
Sterling's just got that misfortunate look about him that makes him a target.
Last edited:
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
Agree with this.
At Liverpool we've had our own controversy when we defended Suarez against Evra. I think we were wrong btw.
But I dont see any racism in thecmedias targetting Sterling. Calling ex Liverpool fc pundits Gammon is bordering on racism and hardly useful to progressing the conversation :(
Sterling's just got that misfortunate look about him that makes him a target.
And what ‘look’ is that exactly? Black perchance? Total codswhallop.
tl;dr Alienating a person can generate interest when negativity arises. Sometimes the means of alienation can be their skin colour. Combining these can create a narrative, which in turn creates stories that people will WANT to read which in turn generates money.
Throughout my working life I've always been required to convince people to do something. Persuade them into seeing your point of view and having them operate to your will. Sometimes that's with colleagues, sometimes that's with clientele, and sometimes that's with customers, all depending on the job I had.
And one big thing you learn in the process is that people like people who are like them. And conversely people are less willing (subconsciously) to like people who aren't like them. And the media knows this.
Now for one, they're always going to have their targets, and they'll stick to them to build momentum to help create the narrative and generate interest and discussion. And another, they're ALWAYS going to focus on elements on what makes these targets different (or specifically, less like the readers) so that the intended audience remove all sense of similarity (or rapport) with the target. This makes it easier to become invested in the negative aspects and buy into them, or more worryingly, be willing to buy into them. For an idea of what I mean think of how we as City fans react differently to negative stories about Pep Guardiola and similarly negative stories about Jose Mourinho. Pep is one of us and we reject any negativity, whereas Mourinho is the enemy and we embrace such negativity.
Sometimes celebrities can be targeted and alienated because they're rich, but only when they display signs that they are flashy. Maybe like Pogba (although it's not just that with him). Previously Ronaldo The Younger would be a target as he consistently showed signs of massive vanity. Sterling isn't flashy or remotely vain though, and has shown constant humility as a professional. There's a reason he's VERY popular with City fans.
Sometimes they can be alienated because they keep doing bad stuff. Think as to when Beckham got a load of shit; after he got sent off at the world cup, after the whole Rebecca Loos affair business, and the recent knighthood email malarkey. Otherwise he's a saint. They did this with Rooney too. Barring the whole laughing gas thing, Raheem is quite well behaved by all accounts.
But sometimes there's just something about them that means you can keep hammering away at them and people will eat it up. Rooney for example gets a lot of stick for things he does right, but he also got a lot most of the rest of the time anyway. You could say that stemmed from disappointing England performances, but he's hardly alone. But they've always marketed him as this dumb and ugly scouser, and that has removed all sense of similarity with him from the general public. Now the amazing part is, they never have to explicitly state he's a dumb and ugly scouser. They know that's what you think of him and they're playing off it effortlessly.
So bringing back to my first point, remember again I said people like people who are like them, and are less trustworthy and willing to like people who aren't. But Sterling really isn't that different, at least as a person. He's well behaved, family orientated, humble, softly spoken and a consummate professional. If anything that makes him likeable. But bearing in mind the stereotypical audiences of the two main anti-Sterling fronts (The Sun and The Mail), there's a rather obvious aspect of him that stands out as different, notably his place of birth and his skin colour. And like Rooney being a dumb and ugly scouser they never have to mention it. But it's there. And we know plenty of people have some innate racist tones, at least in the sense of seeing people other than themselves as different (through no means other than their upbringing and not because they're evil in case you wondered), it came out last night that a higher up City recruitment manager was referring to black players as BBQs. So why wouldn't plenty of other reasonable people see it as a us and them kind of thing with a black person?
I need to be clear, the majority of the public aren't the ones who are being racist. When they say he's a bad footballer it's because that's the narrative they've bought. When Lee Dixon targets Sterling and praises Lingard and Alli despite the fact all three were the same, it's because he's incapable of objective and uninfluenced thought. When Mark Ogden writes a column pining for Rashford, it's exactly the same.
And I agree with plenty of others that the transfer from Liverpool was what absolutely stoked the fire to really magnify the hate (although the whole laughing gas thing was the original kickstart). But the media, who we know many of have little moral in the pursuit of money, are rather cynically using these racist undertones as a means of getting ahead.
Honestly ask yourself, would it be the same if he were white? Because unless the answer is 100% yes than that makes Wrighty right.
Throughout my working life I've always been required to convince people to do something. Persuade them into seeing your point of view and having them operate to your will. Sometimes that's with colleagues, sometimes that's with clientele, and sometimes that's with customers, all depending on the job I had.
And one big thing you learn in the process is that people like people who are like them. And conversely people are less willing (subconsciously) to like people who aren't like them. And the media knows this.
Now for one, they're always going to have their targets, and they'll stick to them to build momentum to help create the narrative and generate interest and discussion. And another, they're ALWAYS going to focus on elements on what makes these targets different (or specifically, less like the readers) so that the intended audience remove all sense of similarity (or rapport) with the target. This makes it easier to become invested in the negative aspects and buy into them, or more worryingly, be willing to buy into them. For an idea of what I mean think of how we as City fans react differently to negative stories about Pep Guardiola and similarly negative stories about Jose Mourinho. Pep is one of us and we reject any negativity, whereas Mourinho is the enemy and we embrace such negativity.
Sometimes celebrities can be targeted and alienated because they're rich, but only when they display signs that they are flashy. Maybe like Pogba (although it's not just that with him). Previously Ronaldo The Younger would be a target as he consistently showed signs of massive vanity. Sterling isn't flashy or remotely vain though, and has shown constant humility as a professional. There's a reason he's VERY popular with City fans.
Sometimes they can be alienated because they keep doing bad stuff. Think as to when Beckham got a load of shit; after he got sent off at the world cup, after the whole Rebecca Loos affair business, and the recent knighthood email malarkey. Otherwise he's a saint. They did this with Rooney too. Barring the whole laughing gas thing, Raheem is quite well behaved by all accounts.
But sometimes there's just something about them that means you can keep hammering away at them and people will eat it up. Rooney for example gets a lot of stick for things he does right, but he also got a lot most of the rest of the time anyway. You could say that stemmed from disappointing England performances, but he's hardly alone. But they've always marketed him as this dumb and ugly scouser, and that has removed all sense of similarity with him from the general public. Now the amazing part is, they never have to explicitly state he's a dumb and ugly scouser. They know that's what you think of him and they're playing off it effortlessly.
So bringing back to my first point, remember again I said people like people who are like them, and are less trustworthy and willing to like people who aren't. But Sterling really isn't that different, at least as a person. He's well behaved, family orientated, humble, softly spoken and a consummate professional. If anything that makes him likeable. But bearing in mind the stereotypical audiences of the two main anti-Sterling fronts (The Sun and The Mail), there's a rather obvious aspect of him that stands out as different, notably his place of birth and his skin colour. And like Rooney being a dumb and ugly scouser they never have to mention it. But it's there. And we know plenty of people have some innate racist tones, at least in the sense of seeing people other than themselves as different (through no means other than their upbringing and not because they're evil in case you wondered), it came out last night that a higher up City recruitment manager was referring to black players as BBQs. So why wouldn't plenty of other reasonable people see it as a us and them kind of thing with a black person?
I need to be clear, the majority of the public aren't the ones who are being racist. When they say he's a bad footballer it's because that's the narrative they've bought. When Lee Dixon targets Sterling and praises Lingard and Alli despite the fact all three were the same, it's because he's incapable of objective and uninfluenced thought. When Mark Ogden writes a column pining for Rashford, it's exactly the same.
And I agree with plenty of others that the transfer from Liverpool was what absolutely stoked the fire to really magnify the hate (although the whole laughing gas thing was the original kickstart). But the media, who we know many of have little moral in the pursuit of money, are rather cynically using these racist undertones as a means of getting ahead.
Honestly ask yourself, would it be the same if he were white? Because unless the answer is 100% yes than that makes Wrighty right.
Agree with this.
At Liverpool we've had our own controversy when we defended Suarez against Evra. I think we were wrong btw.
But I dont see any racism in thecmedias targetting Sterling. Calling ex Liverpool fc pundits Gammon is bordering on racism and hardly useful to progressing the conversation :(
Sterling's just got that misfortunate look about him that makes him a target.
Any other examples of 'that misfortunate look' making players targets?
Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,528
Well said. I agree with all of this. Will the media dare admit it that the hatred is because he left Liverpool for Manchester city? Or are they more comfortable with being "racist"?The media, the established clubs & ex pros of Liverpool have certainly created a narrative with subtle racial undertones.
How dare a young man, a young black man at that not know his place. He was so lucky to be playing for Liverpool. How dare such a young lad, a black lad at that dare to leave such an institution as Liverpool. The white 50 & 60 something's would never have dreamed of leaving Liverpool for such a horrible club as City.
How dare the young 'flashy' 'problem with today player' leave Liverpool for City. Who the fuck does he think he is?
Better money to sit on the bench, not good enough for City, he'll never play, he only went for the cash. He's shit anyway & hes no Ibe.
He should have known his place was the general gist of things.
It was everything the media & ex pro Gammons hate. A young upstart immigrant leaving a decaying established dinosaur of a institution for filthy "Arab petro dollars".
Whilst it's not only fuelled or solely racism, it's certainly in there. You just need look at the Sun using his image when reporting on a young biracial non league player selling drugs to live a lifestyle like Sterling's.
People can bang on about the treatment Beckham or Rooney got. They made huge mistakes that cost their country. All Sterling has ever done is not be much better than other players for England.
The media also had the country praying for their return from injury. People forget about full page spreads of pray for Becks/Rooney. Pictures of a foot we had to put our hand in and pray.
There is a deep rooted hate campaign against him, namely carried out by older white males. I think it daft not to consider his race a factor in this, even if it's subconscious.
Ashley Cole was treated very similar. All for moving to a much better club. Can anyone spot the links?
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
This is the way that Goebels got his way with the Jews. Keep telling people that they are the problem and it is believed. This is not on the same scale of course but you get my drift.
Tommy_Catons_Perm
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2011
- Messages
- 2,528
So the reason for the hatred is because he has a funny face? You're taking the piss man.....ha ha I don't believe you. Just admit the truth.Liverpool fc supporter here.
While I agree that the media loves to target Sterling I really don't think it's race that underpins the slagging he gets. I think he's just unfortunately got one of those faces that people can't relate to. It's a horrible thing bu studies have shown that children with very open and sensitive, emotional faces that look a little unprotected get bullied viciously in school playgrounds.
Sterling looks a little theatrical and you can imaginr his type face etc. would be respected in a west end musical or as a children's entertainer etc. but the macho footie journalists are bringing out their playground bullying behaviour as Raheem doesnt look so machoman, and the public of course, like the Romans watching slaves get crucified, love it.
Fred_Quimby
Well-Known Member
So the reason for the hatred is because he has a funny face? You're taking the piss man.....ha ha I don't believe you. Just admit the truth.
Do you think he actually believes this twaddle? I am beginning to understand a bit more how people who are actually racist believe that they are not. It’s not because he is black honest it because I don’t like his face. Incredible.