PSG vs Istanbul Basaksehir suspended after 4th official accused of racism

[Coatigan]

Hi,

I have just registered and this is my first post on this forum; considering what has happened in the last few days I caught myself trying to better understand how and why is this happening ; trying to cover a broader area I have stumbled upon this discussion.
First of all I really appreciate the level of consideration and moderation of your discussions here; very informative and also level-headed.
I am from Romania and I will try to give a little bit of insight and also a personal view on the matter.
First of all I am against racism and in the same time I am against hypocrisy, bullying, aggressiveness; in this particular case I agree that the ref should have been more careful to the context in which he was but I can also understand that trying to identify a person dressed like all the others, with a balaclava on his head, with no number or any other particular trait - he has used "negru" as a mean of quick identification. Most of you here agree with that I guess. I am also quite sure that many other refs are (sometimes) having conversations between them in their mother language ; its the fastest convenient way in a fast paced sport.
In the same time we all know that on the whole planet each nation , each language has its own demeaning/derogatory words/terms regarding neighbours, nations, other races etc.
Regarding the racism allegations : the black word in romanian is "negru" ; that has nothing to do with racism or demeaning notion.
If you intend to be mean, racist, demeaning towards a person with a darker skin colour you say "cioara" which means crow in romanian, you may say "negrotei" which is the equivalent of "******" , you even may say "tigan" which translates to gypsy; as far as I understood the refs themselves have been called gypsies since 2nd minute of the match from the turkish bench ; thats the reason of red card for coach Pierre Webo.
So there is not a single moment in which the 4th ref has had any intention of saying something even near to racism.

It is clear that Pierre Webo and Demba Ba overreacted as they thought they heard "negro" ; we can understand that. But from misunderstanding a word to allegations of racism thats a very long way in a civilised world; instead, they behave in an aggresive manner (since the beginning of the match even), they are not considering the arguments, they are not considering the language of others, they instantly go to false accusations.

I think we as a society are dealing with a problem where while trying to solve the racism problem we are creating a "problack racism" one; some are oversensitive, there is an obssesion related to the black race ; we all see press titles such "The first black appointed as X" "The first black which whatever" - why the need to emphasize the black race in these cases? Some black people are relaxed and they have no problem with being called black; other are behaving as we saw; then it is clear that we as a society are having some big issue generated by this antiracism taken to obsessive levels.

Let me now give you some insight towards Demba Ba and his approach to racism :
"Bienvenue en occident , la où le blanc se croit tellement supérieur que racisme et débilité deviennent banalité. TIME TO RISE" - Demba Ba tweet on 2 Apr 2020
Is that "le blanc" racism? What do you think?
Also you can try to understand the discussion here even if it is in french :

PSG - Basaksehir : « Désigner un homme par sa couleur n’est pas raciste ! » Gilles-William Goldnadel

VIDÉO - Hier, le PSG et le Basaksehir ont repris le jeu à la suite à l'incident survenu mardi dernier. Les 22 acteurs ont posé un genou à terre pour protester contre le racisme. Selon l'avocat des GG, les propos de l'arbitre n'avaient rien de raciste...

rmc.bfmtv.com

This situation has created a precedent where everyone could be falsely accused of being racist, being bullied, acted aggressive upon just because some nervous aggressive sensitive hypocrite feels bad about his natural skin tone.
Also it has created a precedent where the refs have no authority on the field and the players can do and say anything ; they can call refs names and bully them, be aggressive towards them and even get revoked the red card given; maybe in the future the coaches have to have numbers on their clothes, everyone on the field should be easily identified; more so everything that happens on the bench should be recorded; maybe then they will behave and act like sportsmen not like a bunch of sensitive hypocrite snowflakes.

"Allez le bleus?"

Interesting post, some of it i can agree with or at the very least understand, some, i just can't. Kinda shat the bed at the end there as well a bit.

I don't think it can be argued as over sensitive or hypocritical, to what Is a real pre existing issue. It Could be a misunderstanding, absolutely, even an overreaction. And how it is clarified will be telling. But deliberately cynical, not for me.

 

[Bigga]

You describe people from their most recognisable features compared to other people they’re with. Whether that be a hat, their height, their skin colour, their hair colour, or a striking colour of a coat. Whichever is easiest to decipher who it is.

If five guys were sat together, four were black, one was white, all had dark brown hair and varying degrees of stubble, all about 6foot tall... and someone was trying to point out the white guy to me, I wouldn’t expect him to say “third in from the left, closest to the pillar, with the blue eyes, about the third longest beard and the red boots on”.

If they said that to me, I’d reply “fuck me mate, you mean the fucking white bloke? Stop being so weird!”

But then when trying to point out one of the four black guys in my example, I wouldn’t expect them to use skin colour. Because the skin colour isn’t the most obvious feature that’s different from each other with the four black guys, and if they did I’d say “well, no shit pal, four out of five of them sat there are black, be more specific you daft fucker!”

Each to their own. If it's easier to be lazy about race, then fair enough. It's, literally, skin deep that's the difference in Humanity. I'm not sure if you'd be as lazy if amongst the same examples, you swap a disabled wheelchair user, you describe that person as "the disabled guy/ girl", but you'd use the apparatus instead.

unless I'm describing myself, when verbally having a conversation about other people, I find there's ALWAYS a distinguishable feature to describe someone by.

We should try harder.

 

[Bigga]

I was quite interested to see the response to this, and i admit i do find it intriguing.

Why is that, why would you consider that particular description in that particular context, even as the first choice (rather than only in the event that there are other tall, bald or whetever) biased or in any way prejudicial? Genuine question, and completely putting aside the psg comparison which is probably different instance with a different context.

I personally would go as far as to argue that consciously avoiding describing someone by their skin colour, if that is the obvious easy distinguishing item, is potentially in itself biased, as you are in full awareness highlighting a difference that just has no need of being highlighted.

To me, skin colour should be no different to hair colour, colour of your jacket, glasses, height whatever. Surely it is totally innocent not to focus on skin colour over any other defining characteristic.

And i would consider myself reasonably woke btw, so it is an honest and well intended point, rather than any sort of dismissive denial.

As this is a personal view, I won't pick it apart.

However, if I use it the general term, the more you teach yourself not to see colour or use colour as a description for a person, you will find that eventually you see people as people and actively don't think about the colour of skin.

Try it for a month, despite your 'wokeness', and I think you'll appreciate the experiment.

 

[georges]

Let me add this : there are lots of biased details related to Romania or romanians in the west, I am not going to cover them; I'll just say that not all of the "exports" are always the best quality; you may know what I am talking about. There's a saying around here "Each basket has its own foul eggs" or something like that ; can I say that one with "Each sheepfold has its black sheep" ?
In other terms , let me say that in this part of Europe - black people are 'rara avis' - rarely seen compared to western Europe, so there's hardly any bias towards them; and if there is, it might be because of what people hear and see in the western media; we all know how the press can be a source of misconceptions.
Here's some comic scene from a movie where they painted an actor to seem as being black ; look at the reaction of an old Romanian - he is quite surprised; but that's just a comic scene.

Coming back to the racism issue - I have heard discussions, read about - western europe has its problems in the last 10-20 years; be it France, UK, Sweden, Italy , whatever - there are cases where the media, the police, public persons, private persons - have to be very careful not to be taken as racists; there were cases in the UK , in Sweden where the police didn't do their jobs in the best manner because they were afraid to be perceived as racists? Do you have any knowledge on this matter?
There will always be misconceptions, misunderstandings, false accusations, unintended offenses as long as there are cultural and language differences ; that's a struggle everywhere. It should be only approached in a rational manner but we are all humans and this is not always happening.
Coming back to football - would it be better if every person on the field will be reduced to a number so far so not to be referred to using their skin color; write their names with caps lock on some badges?

 

[WNRH]

Well, if you treat people like people you'd say the guy in the middle. Everything is biologically similar if not the same. We're supposed to be moving society on, aren't we?

Personally I detest using colour as a reference and will only do so if absolutely forced to, like in the 'Shooting' thread to highlight differences in treatment of people.

I agree with this but does the same then not apply to other areas? Things like the Mobo's, the BlackList awards, Black History Month. I can understand why they were created but in 2020, do we need to continue to categorised people?

If Sterling gets to lets say 155 goals, will he be viewed as City's highest scoring black player or City's 4th highest goalscorer?

 

[Coatigan]

As this is a personal view, I won't pick it apart.

However, if I use it the general term, the more you teach yourself not to see colour or use colour as a description for a person, you will find that eventually you see people as people and actively don't think about the colour of skin.

Try it for a month, despite your 'wokeness', and I think you'll appreciate the experiment.

I actually think it is a bit of a condescending and misplaced response, if im honest. No issue with anything being picked apart, i have made it clear both are personal thoughts, i did ask.


I don't Need to try it. i am pretty damn confident that i Do see people. AND colour, thankfully, and that to me colour is so bloody irrelevant that i dont need to dwell on it.

You can't be right, in being hypothetically offended by the specific hypothetical example @Ban-jani raised, In the same way you can't be wrong to be offended either. Micah and Barnes for example have stated they wouldn't be offended being described as black, and i have friends that would say the same. In no way is their feeling any more valid than yours, that is the point, you would have an issue with it, thats fair and i'd respect that. Doesn't mean there IS an issue.

For the record, i Would be culturally sensitive and would avoid describing someone by the colour of their skin, but, as i note, i think that itself is then bias, because i am forcing a response to a supposed feeling i just do not have. But i do recognize it is the call it educated and sensible thing to do.

Edit, if you do think this is getting anywhere close to any lines, i am more than happy to leave it there tbh. i appreciate your response regardless, on what is a personal and sensitive matter.

 

[Bigga]

I agree with this but does the same then not apply to other areas? Things like the Mobo's, the BlackList awards, Black History Month. I can understand why they were created but in 2020, do we need to continue to categorised people?

If Sterling gets to lets say 155 goals, will he be viewed as City's highest scoring black player or City's 4th highest goalscorer?

What you say is a societal construct. You should actually reconfigure your thinking. It should not be why is there 'Black History Month, 'MoBO Awards' etc, as these things were made to redress the balance exclusion.

You should be thinking why is it Black people haven't invented anything(we have, plenty) or why Black music get appropriated so much that a counterpart gets all the glory?

Do you see the active systemic issues in everyday life now, just to reframe things?

 

[Bigga]

I actually think it is a bit of a condescending and misplaced response, if im honest. No issue with anything being picked apart, i have made it clear both are personal thoughts, i did ask.


I don't Need to try it. i am pretty damn confident that i Do see people. AND colour, thankfully, and that to me colour is so bloody irrelevant that i dont need to dwell on it.

You can't be right, in being hypothetically offended by the specific hypothetical example @Ban-jani raised, In the same way you can't be wrong to be offended either. Micah and Barnes for example have stated they wouldn't be offended being described as black, and i have friends that would say the same. In no way is their feeling any more valid than yours, that is the point, you would have an issue with it, thats fair and i'd respect that. Doesn't mean there IS an issue.

For the record, i Would be culturally sensitive and would avoid describing someone by the colour of their skin, but, as i note, i think that itself is then bias, because i am forcing a response to a supposed feeling i just do not have. But i do recognize it is the call it educated and sensible thing to do.

Edit, if you do think this is getting anywhere close to any lines, i am more than happy to leave it there tbh. i appreciate your response regardless, on what is a personal and sensitive matter.

I don't have any malice to what you say. You have a right to say it.

I did, as I said, not pick apart your personal view. I should, however, have not omitted my fuller response, so that's on me.

To further add to my point, I should included that I, once, thought I 'didn't see colour', but used to reference people by race and I caught myself doing the one thing that annoyed me. I spent a protracted amount of time teaching myself not use racial descriptions.

My world opened up, which is why I say I like to use any availability of description I can, other than race.

it's that simple. I wasn't having a go, I made the mistake of not fleshing out my position, so I take full blame for it.

 

[georges]

I can give you another good example related to different language and culture which can in some circumstances raise the same issue ; we all have the so called "First Name" "Last Name".
In UK we have David Beckham, Ryan Giggs, Raheem Sterling, Paul Scholes etc.
In Romania we have 4th ref Sebastian Coltescu, Ovidiu Hategan and so on.
Beckham, Giggs, Sterling, Scholes, Coltescu, Hategan .. All second names if I am not wrong.
Would you be surprised to know that in Romania we have second names like : Negru, Negrea, Negrescu, Negroiu, Negras,Negrasi, and so on and so forth? None of them would be other than eastern europeans, none of them black people. None of them obvisously would be upset if you call them Negru (meaning black) ; they do not have that sensitive fact or perception related to the term. So it would be very easy to be unconcious of some remote topic which is problematic for other people.
If one of the refs would have as a second name Negru - so many potential problems that could arise , if you call him by that second name, right? Anyone in western Europe could feel bad about it ?

 

[ganganvince]

I can give you another good example related to different language and culture which can in some circumstances raise the same issue ; we all have the so called "First Name" "Last Name".
In UK we have David Beckham, Ryan Giggs, Raheem Sterling, Paul Scholes etc.
In Romania we have 4th ref Sebastian Coltescu, Ovidiu Hategan and so on.
Beckham, Giggs, Sterling, Scholes, Coltescu, Hategan .. All second names if I am not wrong.
Would you be surprised to know that in Romania we have second names like : Negru, Negrea, Negrescu, Negroiu, Negras,Negrasi, and so on and so forth? None of them would be other than eastern europeans, none of them black people. None of them obvisously would be upset if you call them Negru (meaning black) ; they do not have that sensitive fact or perception related to the term. So it would be very easy to be unconcious of some remote topic which is problematic for other people.
If one of the refs would have as a second name Negru - so many potential problems that could arise , if you call him by that second name, right? Anyone in western Europe could feel bad about it ?

The surname Black is also common in UK as is Brown