Player watch: Danny Rose

[yankspurs]

I can't disagree with any of that, but I was listening to a show with Leroy Rosenior, who has just been given a MBE for his work trying to get racism out of football, and he was saying that he doesn't agree with full stadium bans. He was saying that as long as clubs are trying to tackle the problem then they shouldn't be punished for the actions of the minority few who ruin it for others. So if Chelsea are actively trying to educate their fans, and putting in systems to identify the culprits and banning those who they catch then he thinks they are doing their bit to tackle the problem. We had that incident with that idiot throwing the banana recently. Should we have to play a game with no fans because of that?

Like Danny said the fines are pathetic. They aren't a deterrent at all so I'm not sure what the point of them is other than to make it look like FIFA are doing something. It just looks feeble.

Chelsea can say there trying to educate the fans but are they really? Every season it’s racist or anti semitic incident after racist or anti semitic incident. It doesnt get better. It gets worse.

Regarding us, 1 incident in years compared to 5+ incidents every fucking season at Chelsea.

 

[rez9000]

He started off with ‘he can afford 2 minders to walk by his side every minute of the day to attack anyone who’s racist towards him, millions of other blacks can’t, so he shouldn’t be angry’.

Then he pretty much compared racial abuse to banter. Then he said being punched is worse than racist abuse. Then he said he’d rather be called a cockney so and so rather than being hit, so why can’t Rose accept it etc. Before he said he was a cockney, Clinton Morrison told him he wouldn’t understand as he’s not black. ‘Dave’ then said ‘how do you know I’m not black’. Morrison said ‘well are you black’. Dave laughed weirdly a couple of times and eventually said ‘no I’m not’. It was cringeworthy and they all slated him to bits. Embarrassing for anyone Spurs related.

Thanks, bomber.

Yep, the usual tropes.

Although I would challenge Morrison on the 'you're not black, so you wouldn't understand' line. That, to me, is a terrible argument. It's not an invalid argument, just not a very effective one, mainly because it deepens lines of division and difference.

If someone's racism stems from their own philosophising, then highlighting differences between races adds justification in their minds. These types usually fall back on the 'blacks (and other races) are not the same as whites' and so the 'you're not black so you wouldn't understand' argument is part of their thinking already, albeit in reverse.

When it comes to dealing with the casual racist, a key tool is making them understand that we're all human and broadly act and feel in the same way regardless of genetic makeup*. In those cases, highlighting difference undermines one of the most effective ways of convincing someone to change their thinking.

And that highlights one of the most problematic issues when it comes to tackling discrimination: that there are too many simple narratives and arguments, especially in the media; using sledgehammer tactics when what is needed is a far more nuanced approach. There seems to be an almost pathological rejection of attempting to persuade. All I see is attempts to force change. That, for me, borders on fascism - trying to force people to think a particular way and will be ultimately self-defeating.

There is too much force being applied in the areas where persuasion is needed and too much lethargy, and even downright apathy, in areas where a more assertive approach is needed.

*I'm more and more refusing to use the term 'race' - I think it's a completely invalid concept that humans belong to different races. The differences we see between so-called races are nothing more than expressions of varying phenotypes.

 

[wearetheparklane]

Thanks, bomber.

Yep, the usual tropes.

Although I would challenge Morrison on the 'you're not black, so you wouldn't understand' line. That, to me, is a terrible argument. It's not an invalid argument, just not a very effective one, mainly because it deepens lines of division and difference.

If someone's racism stems from their own philosophising, then highlighting differences between races adds justification in their minds. These types usually fall back on the 'blacks (and other races) are not the same as whites' and so the 'you're not black so you wouldn't understand' argument is part of their thinking already, albeit in reverse.

When it comes to dealing with the casual racist, a key tool is making them understand that we're all human and broadly act and feel in the same way regardless of genetic makeup*. In those cases, highlighting difference undermines one of the most effective ways of convincing someone to change their thinking.

And that highlights one of the most problematic issues when it comes to tackling discrimination: that there are too many simple narratives and arguments, especially in the media; using sledgehammer tactics when what is needed is a far more nuanced approach. There seems to be an almost pathological rejection of attempting to persuade. All I see is attempts to force change. That, for me, borders on fascism - trying to force people to think a particular way and will be ultimately self-defeating.

There is too much force being applied in the areas where persuasion is needed and too much lethargy, and even downright apathy, in areas where a more assertive approach is needed.

*I'm more and more refusing to use the term 'race' - I think it's a completely invalid concept that humans belong to different races. The differences we see between so-called races are nothing more than expressions of varying phenotypes.

But isn't the sad reality of it that blacks and whites are inherently different, and that this difference is the cause of institutional racism, and hence to address and resolve this we have to understand and recognise this disparity and looke to resolve it through less passive ways - ie positive representation (eg. Rooney rule).

Isn't it so that by treating races like they are all one and the same is almost ignoring the disparity? In an ideal ethical world then yes, of course we are all the same. But the sad reality is we aren't and it needs to be recognised first.

(Huge apologies if I've misunderstood your post and you weren't saying what I've read your post as - I'm supposed to revising for an exam so am procrastinating wildly.)

 

[rez9000]

But isn't the sad reality of it that blacks and whites are inherently different, and that this difference is the cause of institutional racism, and hence to address and resolve this we have to understand and recognise this disparity and looke to resolve it through less passive ways - ie positive representation (eg. Rooney rule).

Isn't it so that by treating races like they are all one and the same is almost ignoring the disparity? In an ideal ethical world then yes, of course we are all the same. But the sad reality is we aren't and it needs to be recognised first.

(Huge apologies if I've misunderstood your post and you weren't saying what I've read your post as - I'm supposed to revising for an exam so am procrastinating wildly.)

No, whites, blacks, and other "races" are not inherently different. We are all the same.

There are differences in culture, yes, but the definition of race is predicated on a fundamental biological difference. If you transplant a person from one culture to another, they take on the aspects of the culture they are part of. Their genetic makeup has absolutely no bearing.

I always look to myself and my family. I come from Iranian stock, but I was born and brought up in the UK. I subscribe to UK culture and values. My genetic makeup has no influence on my beliefs.

At bottom, we are all human. We feel and act in the same fundamental ways. Highlighting differences in phenotype is an absolutely ridiculous idea, regardless of if it's done to discriminate or to fight discrimination.

That's not to say that another person's cultural belief should be denigrated. That should be celebrated, if for no other reason that it adds colour and variation and complexity to one's own culture. But stating that someone being black or white or Asian or whatever makes them fundamentally different simply isn't logical.

 

[allatsea]

Have great sympathy for Danny Rose and other players who have been or are being similarly affected. The simple truth is the FA, the PL, Uefa, and FIFA, are doing virtually nothing effective to stamp out racism in football. Clubs or Countries should be banned from International competitions where this has happened unless they can prove they have taken effective steps to stop it reoccurring.

 

[wearetheparklane]

No, whites, blacks, and other "races" are not inherently different. We are all the same.

There are differences in culture, yes, but the definition of race is predicated on a fundamental biological difference. If you transplant a person from one culture to another, they take on the aspects of the culture they are part of. Their genetic makeup has absolutely no bearing.

I always look to myself and my family. I come from Iranian stock, but I was born and brought up in the UK. I subscribe to UK culture and values. My genetic makeup has no influence on my beliefs.

At bottom, we are all human. We feel and act in the same fundamental ways. Highlighting differences in phenotype is an absolutely ridiculous idea, regardless of if it's done to discriminate or to fight discrimination.

That's not to say that another person's cultural belief should be denigrated. That should be celebrated, if for no other reason that it adds colour and variation and complexity to one's own culture. But stating that someone being black or white or Asian or whatever makes them fundamentally different simply isn't logical.

Sorry no - I didn't mean to say blacks and whites are different in the way it is used to denigrate one or the other through racist ideology (I agree with your sentiment above). I simply meant that they are different in the opportunities they are afforded, the privileges they are given etc etc, and that those differences should not be ignored.

I think wires were crossed. Anyway we will get in trouble soon with this off topic meander.

Danny Rose is a top full-back and I just hope he can get back to his level from 2-3 years ago. More importantly I hope he finds happiness and peace.

 

[Dougal]

But isn't the sad reality of it that blacks and whites are inherently different, and that this difference is the cause of institutional racism, and hence to address and resolve this we have to understand and recognise this disparity and looke to resolve it through less passive ways - ie positive representation (eg. Rooney rule).

Isn't it so that by treating races like they are all one and the same is almost ignoring the disparity? In an ideal ethical world then yes, of course we are all the same. But the sad reality is we aren't and it needs to be recognised first.

(Huge apologies if I've misunderstood your post and you weren't saying what I've read your post as - I'm supposed to revising for an exam so am procrastinating wildly.)

It depends on the situation you are accrediting the difference to. If you are a black woman ordering makeup then obviously you need to allow for your skin colour. If you are a black man playing football then the colour of your skin has nothing to do with how you play your football compared to your white teammate. We know when it’s being used as a form of and reason for abuse. To split hairs on the finer details of it is to detract from the obvious unacceptable behaviour.

 

[rez9000]

Sorry no - I didn't mean to say blacks and whites are different in the way it is used to denigrate one or the other through racist ideology (I agree with your sentiment above). I simply meant that they are different in the opportunities they are afforded, the privileges they are given etc etc, and that those differences should not be ignored.

I think wires were crossed. Anyway we will get in trouble soon with this off topic meander.

Danny Rose is a top full-back and I just hope he can get back to his level from 2-3 years ago. More importantly I hope he finds happiness and peace.

Oh no, on that score you're absolutely right. My position on that isn't that because we're all the same there's no work to be done.

It's because I believe that we are no different to each other that there is work to be done. As I say, Morrison's argument isn't invalid because the perspective of non-white people is currently different. I'm just saying it's not an effective argument to make to someone with racist views. In contrast, it's an excellent argument to use when it comes to institutional change, which is the nuance that I feel is missing in the way the media, in particular, responds and reports on issues like Danny's

 

[Tweddled]

Rose's reaction to the first goal at the new stadium

 

[wearetheparklane]

It depends on the situation you are accrediting the difference to. If you are a black woman ordering makeup then obviously you need to allow for your skin colour. If you are a black man playing football then the colour of your skin has nothing to do with how you play your football compared to your white teammate. We know when it’s being used as a form of and reason for abuse. To split hairs on the finer details of it is to detract from the obvious unacceptable behaviour.

Agree 100% - my post was worded poorly, see my response rez above.

Some people will use the argument of 'we are all the same' to criticise positive selection (I don't like the term positive discrimination) as anti-meritocratic. When actually, the system is so skewed in one direction that it needs to be recognised and accepted for what it is before it is changed - that's what I meant by saying blacks and whites were different.

 

[rez9000]

Rose's reaction to the first goal at the new stadium

When I saw that the first time, i felt such a rush of affection for him. That it seemed to matter to him as much as it did to us was very warming. OK, it might just be that he's happy the team he plays for scored and, who knows, he might have reacted the same whoever he was playing for. But it was still lovely to see.

 

[Gassin's finest]

Are people getting from Danny and Sterling's recent interviews, that it is not just the immediately upsetting act of being subjected to racism/hate in person, but also the practically non-punishment... indeed almost dismissal... of racism, that is the most depressing thing?

That it suggests that it is not just the ignorant few that are racist or find it acceptable, but the very establishment that claims to represent them that are racist?

That is the ultimate point that Rose and Sterling are trying to make.

 

[wearetheparklane]

Oh no, on that score you're absolutely right. My position on that isn't that because we're all the same there's no work to be done.

It's because I believe that we are no different to each other that there is work to be done. As I say, Morrison's argument isn't invalid because the perspective of non-white people is currently different. I'm just saying it's not an effective argument to make to someone with racist views. In contrast, it's an excellent argument to use when it comes to institutional change, which is the nuance that I feel is missing in the way the media, in particular, responds and reports on issues like Danny's

Agreed - although I don't think the subtle nuances of such arguments are going to be picked up by your typical racist...

 

[gilzeantheking]

It all comes down to the fact that Danny Rose is being abused while he is at work. It is immaterial that he is being exceptionally well paid to do his job.

None of us would like it if we were abused whilst going about our daily grind no matter how well or poorly we are being paid.

It always astounds me ( though I don't know why I am surprised) at how terminally hard of understanding some people are.

 

[tooey]

I'll always respect Danny Rose, he has always shown himself to have tremendous bravery on and off the pitch. It would be easy for him to keep his mouth closed, take the money and run. The fact he speaks so openly and honestly is a breath of fresh air in a world full of PR machines.

 

[rez9000]

Agreed - although I don't think the subtle nuances of such arguments are going to be picked up by your typical racist...

The problem is, you simply can't force people to change their thinking. That's just fascism and it's happening more and more. Moral rectitude doesn't grant carte blanche to act badly.

The problem with marginalising views rather than engaging with them is that it amplifies things. When someone is told that their views are wrong and that that makes them undesirable, it justifies their position in their mind. That's old knowledge that we seem to have forgotten ("you catch more flies with honey than vinegar").

Paraphrasing something JFK once said: 'If you make peaceful protest impossible, you make violent protest inevitable'.

Whether we like it or not, a large part of racist and discriminatory thought is rooted in a sense of disgruntlement and protest. As @onthetwo and @blackburn have said, there is a lot of scapegoating going on. Why? Because people have a sense of grievance. That doesn't excuse their actions, but does explain it.

The reasons for that sense of grievance is the subject for a very different debate, so I won't go into them here. But if that sense of grievance exists and is expressed against people like Danny Rose, is treating that hostility with more hostility really the best course of action? Doesn't anger just beget more anger? Again, old knowledge.

Like it or not, we're tackling the problem badly at the moment.

But you're right - we're going wildly off-topic.

 

[hughy]

Rose's reaction to the first goal at the new stadium

I wonder if it was a Palace fan recording that. It's being shot from the NE corner of the stadium, and he doesn't seem to react like you'd imagine someone would to the first goal at NWHL...

 

[wearetheparklane]

The problem is, you simply can't force people to change their thinking. That's just fascism and it's happening more and more. Moral rectitude doesn't grant carte blanche to act badly.

The problem with marginalising views rather than engaging with them is that it amplifies things. When someone is told that their views are wrong and that that makes them undesirable, it justifies their position in their mind. That's old knowledge that we seem to have forgotten ("you catch more flies with honey than vinegar").

Paraphrasing something JFK once said: 'If you make peaceful protest impossible, you make violent protest inevitable'.

Whether we like it or not, a large part of racist and discriminatory thought is rooted in a sense of disgruntlement and protest. As @onthetwo and @blackburn have said, there is a lot of scapegoating going on. Why? Because people have a sense of grievance. That doesn't excuse their actions, but does explain it.

The reasons for that sense of grievance is the subject for a very different debate, so I won't go into them here. But if that sense of grievance exists and is expressed against people like Danny Rose, is treating that hostility with more hostility really the best course of action? Doesn't anger just beget more anger? Again, old knowledge.

Like it or not, we're tackling the problem badly at the moment.

But you're right - we're going wildly off-topic.

Great post.

I really like the way you type (no patronising intended) - I almost feel like provoking you into more!

 

[rez9000]

Great post.

I really like the way you type (no patronising intended) - I almost feel like provoking you into more!

Very kind of you to say. Thank you.

 

[nailsy]

Chelsea can say there trying to educate the fans but are they really? Every season it’s racist or anti semitic incident after racist or anti semitic incident. It doesnt get better. It gets worse.

Regarding us, 1 incident in years compared to 5+ incidents every fucking season at Chelsea.

As I mentioned those comments came from one of the countries most knowledgeable people on the subject who knows a lot more about it than me. Without looking into it I couldn't say what they've done about racism, but I know they took some fans to Auschwitz to try and educate them. I don't get why any team wouldn't want to stop racism and antisemitism among their fans. Taking out the moral aspect it's bad publicity, it must hurt their own players and fans to hear that stuff, it costs the club money in fines and it probably costs them money in lots of other areas. It must be in the clubs own interests to do something about it?

When I saw that the first time, i felt such a rush of affection for him. That it seemed to matter to him as much as it did to us was very warming. OK, it might just be that he's happy the team he plays for scored and, who knows, he might have reacted the same whoever he was playing for. But it was still lovely to see.

I know it was the wrong decision, but trying to pass to Kane when he could've had a shot to score the first goal at the new stadium just shows what a team player he is.