Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Great article DDB, thanks for posting it especially for us across the pond whom don't always search out the UK papers on line.

Yes it's very interesting how Evra has turned into the villain.

i do think liverpool shouldnt have done the suarez t-shirt thing. It looked silly to be honest.....also not a suprise Terry got booed everytime he touched the ball last night.

None of it makes a lot of sense and we may never know the truth, but the FA must know something to issue an 8 match ban that they are not telling us. On this I have to assume Suarez is guilty of saying a racial slur until I see or hear something else. Liverpool FC must also take this stance until there is an appeal and he is found innocent. To openly support Suarez is sending the wrong message to the fans. They would be better off just keeping a low profile and see if some truths come out of this.

what liverpool did could open a can of worms. Imagine if every side did that, what sort of message would that send?!

This is a minor incident, probably reflecting the fact that Alan Hansen either doesn't really have black friends, or is just an ignorant old man. I was shocked when I heard him using this word on MOTD, but at least he had the good sense to apologise for it:

'Alan Hansen has been forced to apologise to shocked television viewers after making a racial gaffe TWICE during last night's Match of the Day. The BBC pundit - who is paid an enormous £40,000 per show - caused controversy after describing black players as 'coloured' when discussing the current John Terry and Luis Suarez racism rows. Fellow pundit Lee Dixon looked on in apparent unease as former Liverpool defender Hansen, 56, said: ‘I think there’s a lot of coloured players in all the major teams and there are lots of coloured players who are probably the best in the Premier League.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z1hYhEUt1q

Hopefully, now we can move on, and hopefully Hansen has learnt what terms are acceptable to use to describe black players, and what are not....

Liverpool fans on racial abuse in 2005

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/ind ... ic=93131.0

How times change...

ddb wrote:Liverpool fans on racial abuse in 2005

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/ind ... ic=93131.0

How times change...

A rather sweeping statement with a distinct lack of justification. Would you be implying that Liverpool fans are racist ddb? I don't for a moment expect you to say 'yes' on this forum, but will stay hidden behind your generalistic swipes at every Liverpool fan. A very, very cheap and juvenile dig on a very emotive subject!!

No, how the heck did you come to that conclusion? I'm saying if this was Hernandez and Johnson, we would see a very different reaction from Liverpool fans a shown in 2005. Don't see why you think everything I post has a hidden agenda.

Is saying coloured a racist slur?

Isn't that a bit too much?

Evra has had a lot of bad press generally so he is part of the players people don't like. It is probably due to the fact that he is quite sure of himself I guess that people get antagonised by him.

I don't think an 8 match ban will do anything though, the message is don't use racist slurs, not think about what you just said and the implications.

I am even sure it increases hatred more than anything.

I think Evra and Suarez should have been made to discuss this together with a mediator. Suarez offering his apologies and Evra showing he accepted them.

keshto wrote:Is saying coloured a racist slur?

Isn't that a bit too much?

It's not as bad as calling someone a n****r or an Asian person a P**i, but it's as bad as going on television and calling a white person a 'honky' or a 'whitey', or an Asian person a 'coolie'....

The word 'coloured' was used in the US and UK to disparagingly refer to black people back in the days when they were treated as second-class citizens. For example, in the pre-civil rights era, there were signs saying 'no coloureds allowed', 'coloureds only' above segregated bathrooms, etc, and those days still rankle. There were similar 'no coloureds' signs in the UK in those days over pubs, rentals, etc.

As a sign of moving on from those racist days, black people prefer not to be called 'coloured' any more, but unfortunately there's still a group of uninformed older people who still use that term, including my old white aunt, who had to be kindly but firmly informed that such a nomenclature was not appropriate.

Hansen was right to apologise....

The word 'coloured' was used in the US and UK to disparagingly refer to black people back in the days when they were treated as second-class citizens. For example, in the pre-civil rights era, there were signs saying 'no coloureds allowed', 'coloureds only' above segregated bathrooms, etc, and those days still rankle. There were similar 'no coloureds' signs in the UK in those days over pubs, rentals, etc.

As a sign of moving on from those racist days, black people prefer not to be called 'coloured' any more, but unfortunately there's still a group of uninformed older people who still use that term, including my old white aunt, who had to be kindly but firmly informed that such a nomenclature was not appropriate.

The word 'coloured' also generalises all races other than whites into the same group. I was of the belief that was the main reason it was considered derogatory.

Well I personally have a problem with words being banned because of racist connotation, it contributes more than anything else.

I don't see the problem with saying coloured, and I would say that for all non-white people, it is just a word after all, and it does indicate a different colour.

It is a fact that we have different colours, nothing racist in that, I think we have become really stupid lately with racism accusation, and we should try and tackle it differently if we want things to evolve more quickly, although I am pretty sure it will change in a hundred years as the demography will change.

GG - Amir Sohail wrote:

The word 'coloured' was used in the US and UK to disparagingly refer to black people back in the days when they were treated as second-class citizens. For example, in the pre-civil rights era, there were signs saying 'no coloureds allowed', 'coloureds only' above segregated bathrooms, etc, and those days still rankle. There were similar 'no coloureds' signs in the UK in those days over pubs, rentals, etc.

As a sign of moving on from those racist days, black people prefer not to be called 'coloured' any more, but unfortunately there's still a group of uninformed older people who still use that term, including my old white aunt, who had to be kindly but firmly informed that such a nomenclature was not appropriate.

The word 'coloured' also generalises all races other than whites into the same group. I was of the belief that was the main reason it was considered derogatory.

Yeah, that's true as well....

keshto, in the end, what matters is what the race you're talking about feels about the words you're using to describe them, and black Britons were very offended when Hansen used that word twice on BBC....

Are you okay with white people describing Asians as "P**is"? Because I'm not....

A few years ago, I was quietly walking home with a couple bags of groceries in my hands, when two thugs came up to me and shouted in my face to "Go back home, you f***ing P**i". Now, how do you propose that I resolve that issue?

Thankfully, British law gave me recourse. I reported the abuse, and they registered it as a hate crime, and investigated it. They could only do that if the offending words are banned by dint of their racist connotations....

And there lies the problem Mike, is that people are offended by these words, because they are told it is offensive.

it's just a word. Even P**i is just a word, it's short for Pakistani for christ's sake (or should I say for Math's sake, as I am an atheist?).

You can't let racists and people full of hatred and also full of ignorance ban words from the vocabulary.

It goes against everything I believe in to be honest.