Thermal
August Member
I'm pointing out how simple it is to not refer to someone as 'the _____ one'. There are non-offensive means of address available to all.
Racism or misunderstanding?
- Thread starter Mr Fied
- Start date
I'm pointing out how simple it is to not refer to someone as 'the _____ one'. There are non-offensive means of address available to all.
Distracted1
Philosopher
I was giving the poster the benefit of not assuming that they believe the only humans who qualify as "people" are white.
Because they wouldn't have had a number or their name on their back.
I was responding to this
One team from France, the other from Turkey, the officials from Romania.
I think it is reasonable to assume the officials may not have been familiar with the names of the coaching staff apart from maybe the head coach of each side.
From this picture it doesn't look like there were any other black members of the coaching staff.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,073
There are 46 potentially active players on each side at an NFL game. And they're wearing helmets a lot of the time. I wouldn't expect any official to learn them all. Which is why they have numbers.
Even the 16 or 17 players in an Association Football squad is going to be tricky. They have number too.
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
I don't know the norms and history and culture around racial description in the sport or countries involved.
But I would be surprised if BOTH teams reacted so strongly on the scene if there was nothing to it. They DO have all of that context and more. Any disingenuous motivation one team might have, you wouldn't expect it from both.
But I would be surprised if BOTH teams reacted so strongly on the scene if there was nothing to it. They DO have all of that context and more. Any disingenuous motivation one team might have, you wouldn't expect it from both.
Ron Obvious
Graduate Poster
As I recall, it was the Romanian fourth official who was the person accused of saying something racist by referring to the "black player" as the one who should receive the yellow card, "black" in a Latin-origin language being some variant of "Negro", of course.
Massive overreaction, IMO. No more racist than any other physical descriptor to single out which one you mean in a group.
The usual suspects will predictably disagree.
Massive overreaction, IMO. No more racist than any other physical descriptor to single out which one you mean in a group.
The usual suspects will predictably disagree.
Thermal
August Member
The article is not overly clear, but I can see one instance where this might make a little bit of sense, although still insensitive as all hell.
Dozen or so guys in one area of the bench, dressed plus or minus in the same team colors. Only one is a black guy. If the ref is at some kind of distance, he might say 'the black one', meaning 'of that group of which the most unique characteristic to single him out at a distance is that he is black'.
Dozen or so guys in one area of the bench, dressed plus or minus in the same team colors. Only one is a black guy. If the ref is at some kind of distance, he might say 'the black one', meaning 'of that group of which the most unique characteristic to single him out at a distance is that he is black'.
Did you read the OP? The person being identified as 'black' is a member of the coaching team. The two teams are from different countries (France and Turkey), and do not regularly play one another. The fourth official involved is from Romania. He might be expected to know most of the players by name, but it's a bit of stretch to expect him to know all the coaching teams.
As I've already said, I'm not forming an opinion without further information on whether what he said was racist, just pointing out that some of the alternative ways suggested here to identify which of two people he was referring to were not necessarily available to him.
This, if aimed at a person you don't know I don't think it can be seen as banter or a joke.
Without an insult being added it could still be construed as insulting or racist depending on the tone of voice and the context in which it is used.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,073
Yes, and if they're speaking in a language where the word for black is 'negro', as it is in Spanish, and, I think, a few other languages, then that could cause an issue.
That does sound like what happened, as far as I can follow the reports. More details here in some tweets after the incident. It does seem my earlier conjecture may be relevant, that he said 'black' in Romanian, which is 'negru', but what was heard was 'negro', but there is also the question of why was it necessary to specify he was black.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
In NFL (American "football") games, the officials usually reference players by uniform number when announcing penalties. Given the typical ethnic mix of NFL teams, saying "the black one" wouldn't narrow it down much.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
The ref's tweet explaining just that makes it soud like he thinks the issue is the word "negru", rather than the use of race and 'one' as an identifier, which I think is the offensive part. The ref seems not to get it.
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,073
Do you think it's inherrently racist to identify someone whose name you don't know as 'the black one' or 'the white one' or 'the chinese one' when they're sat next to someone that clearly doesn't fit that description?
ETA:
This is the US Ryder cup team, 2012
https://img.rasset.ie/00067113-1600.jpg
If you're talking to someone who knows nothing at all about golf and golfers and you want to talk about Tiger Woods and they say, 'which one's he'? then, personally, I'd have no issue saying he was the black one before resorting to 'front row, third from the right' or similar.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
It can be, sure. Trying to put myself in that position, I might actually refer to someone at a distance as 'the black guy', in the same way I might say 'the tall guy'. You pick the trait that is uniquely identifiable at a distance to single him out. The problem is it is easily mixed up with the way a racist would refer to someone only by that trait, as if it is the only trait of note. Too easily confused, in this OP.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
When people look at an incident such as this (a football team walking off form a game) and it revolves around an issue of 'racism', there is a tendency for people to see the POV of the official accused but not of the player/s who took offence. Hence, it becomes an 'over-reaction' by the player or being 'over sensitive'. There is always that denial element. For example, when Millwall players 'took the knee' there was a barrage of booing from their own fans. Most of the media were shocked. Millwall fans flocked the social media to claim they were not booing black people but because of BLM 'being a marxist organisation'. Even the DAILY MAIL carried this obvious falsehood by having dug up some individual/s who had registered a company or charity name as 'BLM UK Ltd' and describing themselves as socialist. The lengths people will go to to deny the reality of racist behaviour to give the racists the benefit of a doubt.
In the case of this official, the truth will come out but you can't refer to someone as 'the Black', 'the Jew', 'the Chinese' or whatever, and not expect a double take.
In the case of this official, the truth will come out but you can't refer to someone as 'the Black', 'the Jew', 'the Chinese' or whatever, and not expect a double take.
Last edited:
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,073
Really? See my picture of the US Ryder Cup team I posted above. How do you refer to Tigert Woods when trying to point him out to someone who knows nothing of golf?