OK, the words were spoken just as the referee was speaking. Not exactly the sorta thing a ref would say to two players, but then I'm not sure I comprehend this world we live inIsn't that the words of the Referee?
Agree with this but.... The 4O should should have been aware of the sensitivity of what he chose to identify the manager with. A person being white is not a sensitive matter right now.If the offender had been the ONLY Caucasian team official in that technical area then I can well imagine that being the way he might have been identified. Likewise, if he was the only one with ginger hair, that could easily be used as a convenient short cut (despite the fact that in other circumstances, "Ginger" could be used as an offensive term). Are we saying that both of these choices would be equally unacceptable?
Personally, I feel that the biggest issue here is that the Romanian word used is almost indistinguishable from other English words that are way more 'loaded' in meaning
A person being white is not a sensitive matter right now.
I would agree with the second part/advisce of your comment above.A black person is black, a white person is white, a brown person is brown. It’s a perfectly acceptable defining characteristic, in the absence of any other in this circumstance. It’s nothing to be sensitive about. Would I advise you use skin colour if you had a reasonable alternative to identify someone? No. Is it worthy of an accusation of racism? Absolutely not...it’s ridiculous.
If we consider that matter in terms of simple logic, you are totally correct. But sadly history shows that for centuries this "perfectly acceptable defining characteristic" was used as an excuse to treat people with the wrong colour skin as second class, unworthy of equal rights, and even to enable them to be bought and sold like animals. For this reason, logic has to be ignored - the plain simple fact is that hundreds of years of discrimination means it IS something to be sensitive about.I have to disagree with this, one. A black person is black, a white person is white, a brown person is brown. It’s a perfectly acceptable defining characteristic, in the absence of any other in this circumstance. It’s nothing to be sensitive about.
"Little-known" is a nonsense descriptor for the language spoken by close to 30 millions people and the main tongue of two different countries.The referee and the fourth official are both fluent in English. As are the team officials. This whole situation could have been avoided if the fourth official simply spoke to his colleague in English, which is the standard language in international football. Instead, the fourth official spoke in a little-known language which is easy to misinterpret.
sorry, got to disagree there. Whilst what you’re saying in terms of discrimination is 100% correct, we’re not in an environment where we can’t simply say somebody is black. What the referee said was not discrimination, he didn’t insult him, or use it as a way to make him superior etc, he simply used it was a defining feature to point him out to the referee. The coaching staff bar the AM are all white, and all of them are wearing identical clothing. Is it bad practice? Absolutely and if he got another chance, I’m sure he wouldn’t say it but when you’re rushing, you just say what you see.If we consider that matter in terms of simple logic, you are totally correct. But sadly history shows that for centuries this "perfectly acceptable defining characteristic" was used as an excuse to treat people with the wrong colour skin as second class, unworthy of equal rights, and even to enable them to be bought and sold like animals. For this reason, logic has to be ignored - the plain simple fact is that hundreds of years of discrimination means it IS something to be sensitive about.
A clip published on other referee forum shows someone from Basaksehir bench saying "in my country Romanians are always gypsies".
Watch MCZnYj1STyZoYXNoPTU3ZGVjNmQ0MjhkYzI2YWQwZGFlYjk2MDk4MmQ0ODk3.mp4.480p | Streamable
Watch "MCZnYj1STyZoYXNoPTU3ZGVjNmQ0MjhkYzI2YWQwZGFlYjk2MDk4MmQ0ODk3.mp4.480p" on Streamable.streamable.com
I would agree with the second part/advisce of your comment above.
But I would still stick by what I said a person skin color being black is is sensitive matter right now. This is very evident by many protest around the world and the BLM action in the last couple of years. There has been nothing similar around for white skin. Hence if someone is identified by their white skin, even though not right, is unlikely to create any issues. But if a person is identified by the black skin, even with no racial discrimination intent, that is also not right AND very likely to case issues.
Are black people trying to make the concept of identifying someone based on their skin colour a major issue? Something that results in pushback and tension? You're absolutely right they are, that's literally the entire point of BLM - well done identifying that. If you could just push through and work out why BLM thinks making that approach feel problematic is worthwhile, you'll have got your head around the whole concept!I get what you’re saying about how it’s a sensitive matter, it is, there’s no denying it. But it’s sensitive because certain groups want it that way, and are doing their level best to create tension. IMO.
Are black people trying to make the concept of identifying someone based on their skin colour a major issue? Something that results in pushback and tension? You're absolutely right they are, that's literally the entire point of BLM - well done identifying that. If you could just push through and work out why BLM thinks making that approach feel problematic is worthwhile, you'll have got your head around the whole concept!
I put the 24/7 News Channels on last night for a short time. There's something really nauseating and insincere about their coverage of this incident and the BLM in general. These channels are desperate to squeeze as much out of BLM as possible to promote their own self-image
WRT this 4O incident, the channels are desperate to find some element of discrimination so they can perpetuate their own personal gain
The fact you don't see the connection between those two statements is the concerning bit. Black people have a long and storied history where their skin colour has been all that is required to trigger serious discrimination. Moving away from seeing that as a primary characteristic unless strictly necessary is clearly a benefit to reducing that discrimination.If that is indeed the case I think BLM would be better off fighting for inequality and discrimination, where it exists, rather than creating an environment where if you’re a certain skin colour your not allowed to say another person has a certain skin colour, when identifying them. It’s an absurd notion.
It’s a major identifying characteristic, which is why the police use it and will carry on using it regardless of politics.
Would I advise anyone uses it in the first instance? No. Regardless of skin colour. But where you have seconds to identify a person who’s effectively in matching uniform with nothing else to go with, then it’s perfectly reasonable and should never not be.
The fact you don't see the connection between those two statements is the concerning bit. Black people have a long and storied history where their skin colour has been all that is required to trigger serious discrimination. Moving away from seeing that as a primary characteristic unless strictly necessary is clearly a benefit to reducing that discrimination.