• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Racism or misunderstanding?

Mr Fied

Muse
M
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
654
During a champions league match between PSG and Istanbul Basaksehir last night, the game was postponed when both sets of players walked off the pitch after an alleged racist phrase was used by an official.

https://www.caughtoffside.com/2020/12/08/i-am-not-a-racist-fourth-official-sebastian-coltescus-explanation-picked-up-by-tv-mics-after-incident-between-psg-and-basaksehir/

The furious reaction from the players and benches on the field stems from the context and the tone of what was said as he allegedly referred to someone on the bench as “the black one” which has understandably not gone down well.
Click to expand...

The official involved has ben quoted as saying:
Sebastian Colţescu picked up on Téléfoot Chaine footage: "Negru in Romanian means black. I am not a racist."
Click to expand...

Istanbul forward Demba Ba, who was a substitute, could be seen on the touchline asking the official: "Why, when you mention a black guy, do you have to say this black guy?"
Click to expand...
It was alleged that a member of Istanbul's coaching staff was involved in an incident and to point him out to the referee
Coltescu used one of the descriptions above.

With all the recent BLM campaign and with most football matches starting with players taking the knee to highlight racism, is this a case of overt racism, over sensitivity or just an over reaction to a translation problem?
 
Last edited:
There is undoubtedly racism on view at football matches, and I’m sure in some cases it might be seen when it wasn’t intended. Without full details it’s hard to be sure which, though the situation described sounds like the old joke about two country simpletons trying to decide how to tell two horses apart.

I saw the documentary by Anton Ferdinand about the incident with John Terry the other day ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000pzpr ). I am entirely sympathetic to people who constantly face insults based purely on the colour of their skin; any reference to that, even innocently, is going to come with the baggage of abuse they have suffered. John Terry was seen to have called Ferdinand a ‘black ****’, though Ferdinand was not aware of it at the time. On the other hand, Ferdinand freely admits to calling Terry a ‘****’ (same word) beforehand (though we don’t know if Terry heard that). Does adding the descriptive ‘black’ make it racist?
 
zooterkin said:
There is undoubtedly racism on view at football matches, and I’m sure in some cases it might be seen when it wasn’t intended. Without full details it’s hard to be sure which, though the situation described sounds like the old joke about two country simpletons trying to decide how to tell two horses apart.

I saw the documentary by Anton Ferdinand about the incident with John Terry the other day ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000pzpr ). I am entirely sympathetic to people who constantly face insults based purely on the colour of their skin; any reference to that, even innocently, is going to come with the baggage of abuse they have suffered. John Terry was seen to have called Ferdinand a ‘black ****’, though Ferdinand was not aware of it at the time. On the other hand, Ferdinand freely admits to calling Terry a ‘****’ (same word) beforehand (though we don’t know if Terry heard that). Does adding the descriptive ‘black’ make it racist?
Click to expand...

I grew up going to football in the 70's and racism was rife.

There was a large right wing influence from places like the National Front and later he BNP .

Fans would even abuse black players from their own team. I wouldn't say it has been eradicated by any means but at least now it is rare enough that when it happens it is a big news story rather than the norm.

Re; the Ferdinand/terry incident, as I recall the lip reading experts couldn't agree on exactly what was said or in what context and Terry was found not guilty in court. Then the FA held their own inquiry where they found him guilty.

In court no witness testified to hearing any racist insults although Ferdinand did admit under oath to insulting Terry's mother as well as calling him a ****. Although having played football (to a very minor level) and refereed to semi pro level this sort of thing is quite normal, and I would suspect most pro players would accept this as part of the job.

Yes, I would say using "black" in the context Terry was accused of would be racist, but to brand someone as racist should require enough evidence for that to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
zooterkin said:
There is undoubtedly racism on view at football matches, and I’m sure in some cases it might be seen when it wasn’t intended. Without full details it’s hard to be sure which, though the situation described sounds like the old joke about two country simpletons trying to decide how to tell two horses apart.

I saw the documentary by Anton Ferdinand about the incident with John Terry the other day ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000pzpr ). I am entirely sympathetic to people who constantly face insults based purely on the colour of their skin; any reference to that, even innocently, is going to come with the baggage of abuse they have suffered. John Terry was seen to have called Ferdinand a ‘black ****’, though Ferdinand was not aware of it at the time. On the other hand, Ferdinand freely admits to calling Terry a ‘****’ (same word) beforehand (though we don’t know if Terry heard that). Does adding the descriptive ‘black’ make it racist?
Click to expand...

Regarding the Terry example. From your description I'd say a good test is "Does the black add to anything bar the insult?" In this instance it doesn't so why add it? It is being used as part of the insult, so yes it is racist. I can understand the person using it may not realise it was racist but given the focus UK football has had in regards to racism I would say this Terry bloke is thick as pig **** if he doesn't understand it was racist.

As to the football official, if it was simply used as a neutral descriptor then it wasn't racist.
 
zooterkin said:
There is undoubtedly racism on view at football matches, and I’m sure in some cases it might be seen when it wasn’t intended. Without full details it’s hard to be sure which, though the situation described sounds like the old joke about two country simpletons trying to decide how to tell two horses apart.

I saw the documentary by Anton Ferdinand about the incident with John Terry the other day ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000pzpr ). I am entirely sympathetic to people who constantly face insults based purely on the colour of their skin; any reference to that, even innocently, is going to come with the baggage of abuse they have suffered. John Terry was seen to have called Ferdinand a ‘black ****’, though Ferdinand was not aware of it at the time. On the other hand, Ferdinand freely admits to calling Terry a ‘****’ (same word) beforehand (though we don’t know if Terry heard that). Does adding the descriptive ‘black’ make it racist?
Click to expand...

If race doesn't matter whey is it that people never get upset and call people "white ####"?
 
I started off thinking, if the explanation given is found to be accurate, then it's laziness on the part of the 4th official (after all, why couldn't he just point and say "that guy over there"?) followed by over reaction.

Then, I reconsidered Darats comment regarding the descriptor and thought, when you apply Darats "test" it can be said that there was no need to use the descriptor in any case. That being the case it's racist.

Then I read what I just wrote and thought, "what if somebody took offence at the use of the gender specific descriptor (that guy) in my suggested alternative?". If that might happen then avoiding such terms is a good strategy. Now we're somewhere between, racist and bigoted. Maybe pointing specifically at the transgressor and saying nothing is the only way out of this with ones reputation intact.

Then, I read what just wrote and thought, "some cultures do not like to be pointed at and some religions find it an insult depending on which finger is used". Then we are now at racist and bigoted. Maybe he should have just walked up to the transgressor and indicated with his head.

Then I read what I just wrote and thought, "perhaps that move might have been threatening". Now were at hostile.

Then I thought, "the problem isn't that there may be some merit to the accusation levelled against the 4th official. The problem is that there are any number of actors who can and will spin any negative situation, in this case the impending red card, to create a situation where prejudice is the only motivation.

Then I thought, "we're ******, they've gained a foothold and the creep has started and, having done so, is slowing down and reversing any, however small, advances made in human relations".
 
ponderingturtle said:
If race doesn't matter whey is it that people never get upset and call people "white ####"?
Click to expand...

I've been called "mat salleh", in Malaysia - not quite at the level you describe but it's no compliment.

In SE Asia, I've been call "farang" and "Farang khi nok" - the latter basically calling me a piece of ****.

Sometimes the insulter wasn't even "upset"!

What was your question again?
 
Mr Fied said:
During a champions league match between PSG and Istanbul Basaksehir last night, the game was postponed when both sets of players walked off the pitch after an alleged racist phrase was used by an official.

https://www.caughtoffside.com/2020/12/08/i-am-not-a-racist-fourth-official-sebastian-coltescus-explanation-picked-up-by-tv-mics-after-incident-between-psg-and-basaksehir/



The official involved has ben quoted as saying:


It was alleged that a member of Istanbul's coaching staff was involved in an incident and to point him out to the referee
Coltescu used one of the descriptions above.

With all the recent BLM campaign and with most football matches starting with players taking the knee to highlight racism, is this a case of overt racism, over sensitivity or just an over reaction to a translation problem?
Click to expand...


Probably racist. Why would he need to refer the 'Black'? It's as though he saying, you might be a well paid famous footballer and me an 'umble linesman but I'm going to put you in your place and call you 'the Black'.

Having been a season ticket holder at both QPR and Aston Villa, it hasn't been my impression that football fans are particularly racist. Sure you have the loud macho assertions of supremacy with plenty of sexism and homophobia (and Yid slurs when playing Spurs). Some of the language is absolutely filthy but more in a bawdy amusing way. Football fans are very witty and the banter is part of the enjoyment. (For example, when every Rangers fan at the Old Trafford away end sang as one - bank managers, labourers - 'Roy Keene is a wanker!'). Aston Villa fans were particularly amusing. Probably because of the droll Brummie accent. I can recall occasions seeing football fans performing nazi salutes but this was relatively rare and I honestly can't remember race hatred.


However, it really hit home just how 'cultural' English football fandom is, whilst at a testimonial match for a retiring QPR player (I think it was Simon Barker). Having been used to aggressive macho sexist loud male voices asserting superiority and arm chair coaching ('Go on my son, down the right, pass it to X, shoot!') the most pleasant football match I ever attended was this particular testimonial game, against the Jamaica national team, who wanted a few friendly games in England ahead of their (first?) World Cup appearance. Not surprisingly, being in Shepherd's Bush and a World Cup team, the place was packed to the rafters with West Indian fans. Every time the Jamaica team went forward, a murmur and hum filled the air rather than shouting and yelling. It was such a nice change. Great atmosphere. No aggression.
 
I don't know if it racism but an on-field official not just using the names of the players during a call and using a descriptive term is weird and I don't know why they would do it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I don't know if it racism but an on-field official not just using the names of the players during a call and using a descriptive term is weird and I don't know why they would do it.
Click to expand...

It was one of the coaches not a player.

If it had been a normal league game in the officials own country he may well have known the coaches name, as it was a champions league game between teams from different countries and officials from a neutral country he may well have not known the guys name.

I'm not sure of the situation at the exact time it happened as to whether there was more than one black guy in the group where the official was identifying him.

Is referring to someone's colour as a means of identification the norm in Romania? I don't know.

I know there are differences in how words are used for descriptive purposes in different countries.

e.g. In the UK we refer to the Australians (esp in cricket) as the Aussies. I have heard Australians refer to the Pakistani cricket team as the Paki's. This would be seen to be highly offensive and extremely racist if used in the UK.
 
Last edited:
In American football, when an offense or penalty is called, the ref announces it by referencing the players jersey number. The ref's personal/artistic impressions don't come into calling the player. Is that really such a high behavioral bar?

Eta: should he call other players 'the ugly one'? 'That long-hair'? 'That tight little package with legs for days'?
 
Last edited:
bluesjnr said:
I started off thinking, if the explanation given is found to be accurate, then it's laziness on the part of the 4th official (after all, why couldn't he just point and say "that guy over there"?) followed by over reaction.

Then, I reconsidered Darats comment regarding the descriptor and thought, when you apply Darats "test" it can be said that there was no need to use the descriptor in any case. That being the case it's racist.

..snip..".
Click to expand...


My test (and please note it is 28p each time you use it or you can opt in for a monthly subscription and have unlimited uses), was more to do with it being amended to an insult.
 
Thermal said:
In American football, when an offense or penalty is called, the ref announces it by referencing the players jersey number. The ref's personal/artistic impressions don't come into calling the player. Is that really such a high behavioral bar?
Click to expand...
It wasn't a player, it was a member of the coaching staff.
 
If there are two blokes sitting side by side over there and you want to indicate one of them to the person you're talking to, it's fine to use a distinguishing characteristic: The tall one, the short one, the one with long hair or, indeed, the black one or the white one. I don't see that as an issue.

Of course, if you both know their names, that has to be easier. If they have numbers on their clothing then that's definitely going to be easier.

The moment you add an insult to the end of it, it becomes more tricky. You might get away with 'you lanky bastard' or 'you blonde haired git', but the moment you consider using a racial characteristic along with an insult you should really stop and think again and maybe come up with something less charged and more poetic.

I've always said it doesn't matter so much what you say as what you mean, which is why you can get away with calling your friends all sorts of things that would result in a punch up if you used them on strangers. One should not expect or receive such latitude with people who aren't close friends.
 
Darat said:
Regarding the Terry example. From your description I'd say a good test is "Does the black add to anything bar the insult?" In this instance it doesn't so why add it? It is being used as part of the insult, so yes it is racist.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you, especially after thinking about it more since seeing the programme. It's just that, at first sight, the other word involved strikes me (as a white person, of course) as more insulting than the word 'black'. However, I can understand why the latter is highly charged.
I can understand the person using it may not realise it was racist but given the focus UK football has had in regards to racism I would say this Terry bloke is thick as pig **** if he doesn't understand it was racist.
Click to expand...

You may well be on to something...

As to the football official, if it was simply used as a neutral descriptor then it wasn't racist.
Click to expand...

Yes, it all depends exactly what was said, and who heard what. It could be that someone heard 'Negru' and thought it was a different word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom