Gus Poyet - right or wrong?

[Bold Seagull]

Probably for the 1st time ever, Mouldy, i'm with you. IMO Gus has done nothing wrong apart from be totally honest. The problem is he has not the language skills to get it across.
I am not in any way supporting racism because I do not believe he was being racist.
The problem is that on here, people love to be outraged, be it about Gus or the club throwing people out.
What do they want exactly? a new manager?

Just on here, and not on every newspaper website, every single national radio station news bulletin, trending on twitter....just on here though you say!?

 

[R. Slicker]

Just on here, and not on every newspaper website, every single national radio station news bulletin, trending on twitter....just on here though you say!?

You don't think the media blows things out of proportion sometimes?
I say 'on here' because we are supposed to be Brighton fans. But it appears a lot prefer it when the club or one of the staff have f***ed up.

 

[Don Quixote]

Gus might have to go, which is a shame as he was a very promising manager.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Probably for the 1st time ever, Mouldy, i'm with you. IMO Gus has done nothing wrong apart from be totally honest. The problem is he has not the language skills to get it across.
I am not in any way supporting racism because I do not believe he was being racist.
The problem is that on here, people love to be outraged, be it about Gus or the club throwing people out.
What do they want exactly? a new manager?

Surely this is not the first time do you remember the......................................you will have to give me time on this one matey.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You don't think the media blows things out of proportion sometimes?
I say 'on here' because we are supposed to be Brighton fans. But it appears a lot prefer it when the club or one of the staff have f***ed up.

I think most people are surprised that on the eve of a massive game for the team, our manager has decided to jump straight into a red hot race row. Clearly with the John Terry incident, Blatters comments etc. it is the hot topic of the day. What he came out with was completely over the top if all he wanted to do was support his mate.

So yes of course it's been blown out of proportion, but Gus is experienced enough to know how the British media works, and should have been a lot more considered. By your own comments you are agreeing at the very least he has been very naive.

 

[ROKERITE]

I think most people are surprised that on the eve of a massive game for the team, our manager has decided to jump straight into a red hot race row. Clearly with the John Terry incident, Blatters comments etc. it is the hot topic of the day. What he came out with was completely over the top if all he wanted to do was support his mate.

So yes of course it's been blown out of proportion, but Gus is experienced enough to know how the British media works, and should have been a lot more considered. By your own comments you are agreeing at the very least he has been very naive.

I think he's been very brave. How easy to keep your head down and your mouth shut when the mob is baying.

 

[Kazenga <3]

Gus might have to go, which is a shame as he was a very promising manager.

 

[R. Slicker]

Surely this is not the first time do you remember the......................................you will have to give me time on this one matey.

I think we agreed on Glenn Murray!

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Just on here, and not on every newspaper website, every single national radio station news bulletin, trending on twitter....just on here though you say!?

It may well be that the majority of the country are scared to say there real feelings on these situations because no one wants to be branded a racist but i believe in speaking the truth why sit on the fence.

I was brought to get up and dust yourself down after taking a knock whether it be verbal or physical not to grass.
I am always open to change but it seems a bit pathetic grassing someone up for a few words being said to in their ear.

 

[Easy 10]

I'm afraid this week's furore has far less to do with fighting racism than with sanctimonious people falling over each other to be more self-righteous than the next man or woman. Pillorying Suarez or Terry for words spoken in the heat of the moment, or Poyet for words spoken in defence of his friend, won't move the fight against racism forward, but it will make a lot of people feel oh so superior.

Gus's comments can't really be defended, but I think this is a very succinct and relevent remark.

 

[tom26]

I've waited all day to make a comment on this - mainly due to some (entirely self-inflicted) password issues - so a lot's been said. And this is a long post - it's a bit of a habit of mine - so to anyone who reads to the end, thanks, it's appreciated.

Unlike some I HAVE been bothered to read through 25-odd pages of thread to see if anyone was saying what I thought or close to it; there's few things more boring than reading the same opinion from fifty different NSCers and had no wish to contribute to that kind of situation. A refreshingly diverse thread though.

There's one thing that's jumped out at me more than anything else. It's people's - often incorrect - definition of racism.

Firstly, many posters on here have confused nationalism and xenophobia with racism, and I would suggest even our dear Gus did the same by equating the alleged racial abuse received by Evra (comments on colour and, by inference, genealogy) with the abuse he received in Spain for being South American (comments on nationality/country of origin).

This is a grey area, even in writing the above I realised how easily abuse about nationality can become a suggestion that members of that nation possesses certain genetic qualities - I've just left a job in an office where, however good-naturedly, comments were made on the finger-count and intra-familial relations of a colleague from Dorset (yes, not strictly a nation, I know) on a daily basis... I don't know anyone who'd call that racism though, and I think anyone calling a French person a 'frog' isn't being racist either. They ARE being nationalistic and xenophobic.

That said, the question I wanted to pose was: "Is it racist to acknowledge that someone has different colour skin to you?"

In Britain, it would seem so. According to Gus, the ROTW thinks differently. Why? And who is right?

I've checked three different dictionaries and they all give the same definition of racism:

This from the Oxford Online:
"1. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
2. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior"


So I agree with the poster who said (something along the lines of) "faced with a situation where a black person did/got something wrong that you thought was stupid you wouldn't say 'you stupid black w***er'", because what does his colour have to do with whether he got it wrong or whether you think it's stupid?

In answer to the poster asking if, if he looked like a (Caucasian) monkey and someone said he looked like a monkey, that would be racist, I say no. However, to say for example that all black people look like monkeys and because of that, they possess the physical and social traits of monkeys, IS racist.

Maybe what Gus meant was that - if "negrito" was indeed the word used in the Suarez/Evra case - this is a term that merely acknowledges the person's colour, it doesn't seek to (in Uruguayan culture - and that cultural difference is important) suggest superiority/inferiority. The 'ito' is an affectionate dimunitive, in the same way that Noone becomes Nooney. LITTLE black man, not little BLACK man - emphasis on 'little'.

While discussing all of this with my girlfriend I said I occasionally refer to black people as black (look I did it again!) and thought this was OK. She pointed out you wouldn't refer to someone Chinese as 'yellow', which did make me think. Anyone disagree?

In a perfect world, we wouldn't acknowledge colour as we are all, in fact, of the same race. So just like 'yellow' isn't acceptable, maybe 'black' shouldn't be either. But while we do, should people be lambasted for it if there is no evidence that the acknowledgement of difference brings with it a suggestion of inferiority/superiority?


In the words of the late great Ron Pickering - "Away you go!"

 

[Deleted member 2719]

I think we agreed on Glenn Murray!

Glenn who?

 

[Billy the Fish]

So you don't think its racist calling some one my little "black " friend?

If someone called you a little "Gay" boy I think you would say something if you were gay or not.

The problem is the culture difference. Over here our brains are programmed to find those things offensive. What if, regardless of your skin colour, everyone was able to say things like that and it wasn't considered derogatory in any way shape or form.

There was an interesting interview on Talksport earlier with a bloke in Argentina, and he basically said the same thing as Poyet - that across south america the word negro isn't considered derogatory like it is over here. Apparently it is written in the media reports, they don't mean it in an offensive way and the black people don't find it offensive.

It's just a bit of a bugger for Gus that that kind of language over here provokes such emotion in people, I guess the last 200 years of history has made sure of that. He's cirtainly dropped a bollock, but I think it is just a massive culture and language difference that has caused it. On a subject like race, he should have the sense to either keep his mouth shut, or lie and just repeat what everyone else says

 

[Ernest]

I can't see what he has said wrong or done wrong. Usual media twats with their fake outrage and the guy on SSN who says nobody in the rest of the football world gives a f*** was right.

 

[Kazenga <3]

I've waited all day to make a comment on this - mainly due to some (entirely self-inflicted) password issues - so a lot's been said. And this is a long post - it's a bit of a habit of mine - so to anyone who reads to the end, thanks, it's appreciated.

Unlike some I HAVE been bothered to read through 25-odd pages of thread to see if anyone was saying what I thought or close to it; there's few things more boring than reading the same opinion from fifty different NSCers and had no wish to contribute to that kind of situation. A refreshingly diverse thread though.

There's one thing that's jumped out at me more than anything else. It's people's - often incorrect - definition of racism.

Firstly, many posters on here have confused nationalism and xenophobia with racism, and I would suggest even our dear Gus did the same by equating the alleged racial abuse received by Evra (comments on colour and, by inference, genealogy) with the abuse he received in Spain for being South American (comments on nationality/country of origin).

This is a grey area, even in writing the above I realised how easily abuse about nationality can become a suggestion that members of that nation possesses certain genetic qualities - I've just left a job in an office where, however good-naturedly, comments were made on the finger-count and intra-familial relations of a colleague from Dorset (yes, not strictly a nation, I know) on a daily basis... I don't know anyone who'd call that racism though, and I think anyone calling a French person a 'frog' isn't being racist either. They ARE being nationalistic and xenophobic.

That said, the question I wanted to pose was: "Is it racist to acknowledge that someone has different colour skin to you?"

In Britain, it would seem so. According to Gus, the ROTW thinks differently. Why? And who is right?

I've checked three different dictionaries and they all give the same definition of racism:

This from the Oxford Online:
"1. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
2. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior"


So I agree with the poster who said (something along the lines of) "faced with a situation where a black person did/got something wrong that you thought was stupid you wouldn't say 'you stupid black w***er'", because what does his colour have to do with whether he got it wrong or whether you think it's stupid?

In answer to the poster asking if, if he looked like a (Caucasian) monkey and someone said he looked like a monkey, that would be racist, I say no. However, to say for example that all black people look like monkeys and because of that, they possess the physical and social traits of monkeys, IS racist.

Maybe what Gus meant was that - if "negrito" was indeed the word used in the Suarez/Evra case - this is a term that merely acknowledges the person's colour, it doesn't seek to (in Uruguayan culture - and that cultural difference is important) suggest superiority/inferiority. The 'ito' is an affectionate dimunitive, in the same way that Noone becomes Nooney. LITTLE black man, not little BLACK man - emphasis on 'little'.

While discussing all of this with my girlfriend I said I occasionally refer to black people as black (look I did it again!) and thought this was OK. She pointed out you wouldn't refer to someone Chinese as 'yellow', which did make me think. Anyone disagree?

In a perfect world, we wouldn't acknowledge colour as we are all, in fact, of the same race. So just like 'yellow' isn't acceptable, maybe 'black' shouldn't be either. But while we do, should people be lambasted for it if there is no evidence that the acknowledgement of difference brings with it a suggestion of inferiority/superiority?


In the words of the late great Ron Pickering - "Away you go!"

Nice post.

 

[Billy the Fish]

http://www.talksport.co.uk/radio/listen-again/episode/58220

Here's that bloke on H&J earlier explaining the South American culture and the word negro. On the 1400-1430 part about 7.20 in

 

[Stoo82]

I've waited all day to make a comment on this - mainly due to some (entirely self-inflicted) password issues - so a lot's been said. And this is a long post - it's a bit of a habit of mine - so to anyone who reads to the end, thanks, it's appreciated.

Unlike some I HAVE been bothered to read through 25-odd pages of thread to see if anyone was saying what I thought or close to it; there's few things more boring than reading the same opinion from fifty different NSCers and had no wish to contribute to that kind of situation. A refreshingly diverse thread though.

There's one thing that's jumped out at me more than anything else. It's people's - often incorrect - definition of racism.

Firstly, many posters on here have confused nationalism and xenophobia with racism, and I would suggest even our dear Gus did the same by equating the alleged racial abuse received by Evra (comments on colour and, by inference, genealogy) with the abuse he received in Spain for being South American (comments on nationality/country of origin).

This is a grey area, even in writing the above I realised how easily abuse about nationality can become a suggestion that members of that nation possesses certain genetic qualities - I've just left a job in an office where, however good-naturedly, comments were made on the finger-count and intra-familial relations of a colleague from Dorset (yes, not strictly a nation, I know) on a daily basis... I don't know anyone who'd call that racism though, and I think anyone calling a French person a 'frog' isn't being racist either. They ARE being nationalistic and xenophobic.

That said, the question I wanted to pose was: "Is it racist to acknowledge that someone has different colour skin to you?"

In Britain, it would seem so. According to Gus, the ROTW thinks differently. Why? And who is right?

I've checked three different dictionaries and they all give the same definition of racism:

This from the Oxford Online:
"1. the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
2. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior"


So I agree with the poster who said (something along the lines of) "faced with a situation where a black person did/got something wrong that you thought was stupid you wouldn't say 'you stupid black w***er'", because what does his colour have to do with whether he got it wrong or whether you think it's stupid?

In answer to the poster asking if, if he looked like a (Caucasian) monkey and someone said he looked like a monkey, that would be racist, I say no. However, to say for example that all black people look like monkeys and because of that, they possess the physical and social traits of monkeys, IS racist.

Maybe what Gus meant was that - if "negrito" was indeed the word used in the Suarez/Evra case - this is a term that merely acknowledges the person's colour, it doesn't seek to (in Uruguayan culture - and that cultural difference is important) suggest superiority/inferiority. The 'ito' is an affectionate dimunitive, in the same way that Noone becomes Nooney. LITTLE black man, not little BLACK man - emphasis on 'little'.

While discussing all of this with my girlfriend I said I occasionally refer to black people as black (look I did it again!) and thought this was OK. She pointed out you wouldn't refer to someone Chinese as 'yellow', which did make me think. Anyone disagree?

In a perfect world, we wouldn't acknowledge colour as we are all, in fact, of the same race. So just like 'yellow' isn't acceptable, maybe 'black' shouldn't be either. But while we do, should people be lambasted for it if there is no evidence that the acknowledgement of difference brings with it a suggestion of inferiority/superiority?


In the words of the late great Ron Pickering - "Away you go!"

I like your thinking.

I have made the bold to use the point that being black is a race and being chinese is a nationality!

Just to add:

It would also seem we are not allowed to acknowledge that different races exist with that definition from the OED.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Regardless of what was actually said or not said, or lost in translation, or quoted or misquoted or quoted out of context, Gus hasn't exacly covered himself in glory with this. Instead he left himself wide open to be pillioried, especially given that racism in football is particulaly sensitive and high profile at the moment. He may be trying to help a friend, but it does appear to have backfired badly.

 

[Working class pride]

I love the shock outrage. This from some of the same people that call people pikeys even though there is a gypsy camp at wild park, a short walk from the amex. Gus is entitled to his view. I have no idea what was aid by the players but if it was Irish, Welsh or Jock cu next tuesday that terry said then would anyone care? Thought not (By the way, Im no fan of Terry either)

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Has he been banned by Richard Hebberd yet?