Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Greg Clarke resigns as Head of the FA after referring to “coloured players” during a Ministerial Select Committee meeting earlier today. 

I’ll confess that I am somewhat confused as to which terms we’re supposed to use when referring to non-Caucasian players, is “coloured players” so different from “People of Colour” which is how I was recommended during my last set of diversity training? Even BAME is short for “Black and Minority Ethnic”, but we’re not supposed to call people “black” either!

I’m not a dinosaur, I’m 32, and I do not want to give someone the opportunity to call me racist, but I am totally at a loss as to what is now acceptable. Please help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Greg Clarke is an idiot and thick but I dont think he intended to be vaguely racist and I dont think someone like him using incorrect terminology is actually the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hogesar said:

I think Greg Clarke is an idiot and thick but I dont think he intended to be vaguely racist and I dont think someone like him using incorrect terminology is actually the problem.

Thanks hoggie, I was genuinely perplexed at the firing squad lining up to assassinate him on the news this evening, sure he’s a moron and some of his comments towards female footballers in my mind were far more offensive, but it seems that not using the exact precise terminology immediately means you’re a massive racist, even if the terminology changes so quickly people struggle to keep up! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the terminology has changed that much to be fair. I’ve known for the last 30+ years at least that “coloured“ is considered offensive. I think that the US phrase “people of colour” has become more widely known over here in probably the last 5 years?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought that of more importance, and often forgotten, is intent and what’s behind what people are saying. Clearly there are words and terms that would be deliberate, this did feel more on the clumsy side of things.

Edited by Branston Pickle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg Clarke was idiotic in four respects:

'Coloured', which has been recognised as inappropriate since the 1960's!

Disrespectful to woman footballers when referring to a ball being struck at them.

Referring to gay people as 'choosing a lifestyle'.

Making a broad generalisation about South East Asian players, based on what happens in his IT department.

It's what you might describe as the most chaotic involuntary resignation speech ever written 🙂

His colleagues let him face the committee on his own, without adult supervision, and the cynic in me wonders if they deliberately left him to throw himself under the bus, which he succeeded in doing. Four times.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt there was any intent on his behalf. Many public figures make slip ups with language. Many have speech writers or spokespersons.

I guess he was under pressure and melted. He has resigned and I don't think anyone should further it.

It appears I will be having new neighbours. I met a lady and gave her some insights and history of the neighbourhood. I told if she needed any help I would be happy to help. She told me she wasn't on her own, she had a partner. I then said it is good to have a MAN around the house. 

It completely escaped me for a moment that she could be in a same **** marriage. It just shows the difficulty and minefield surrounding language right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I very much doubt there was any intent on his behalf. Many public figures make slip ups with language. Many have speech writers or spokespersons.

I guess he was under pressure and melted. He has resigned and I don't think anyone should further it.

It appears I will be having new neighbours. I met a lady and gave her some insights and history of the neighbourhood. I told if she needed any help I would be happy to help. She told me she wasn't on her own, she had a partner. I then said it is good to have a MAN around the house. 

It completely escaped me for a moment that she could be in a same **** marriage. It just shows the difficulty and minefield surrounding language right now.

Hi KG

This was different. At every hurdle he was asked if he wanted to reconsider his comments by the astounded committee members. That was not a slip of the tongue, that was his views. It will be on the 10pm news have a watch. Remember as well the FA stance against racism, had the England manager said any of that, he would have sacked him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

Hi KG

This was different. At every hurdle he was asked if he wanted to reconsider his comments by the astounded committee members. That was not a slip of the tongue, that was his views. It will be on the 10pm news have a watch. Remember as well the FA stance against racism, had the England manager said any of that, he would have sacked him.

I didn't see the committee meeting. If he did have an opportunity to rephrase his comments and did not then he has been incredibly stupid to let his personal feelings overshadow his duty as FA Chairman and good riddance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I didn't see the committee meeting. If he did have an opportunity to rephrase his comments and did not then he has been incredibly stupid to let his personal feelings overshadow his duty as FA Chairman and good riddance.

 

Yup, that is a different context to what I’d read - the man’s a complete idiot if that’s what happened 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FA now have a chance to actually employ someone who gets the game at all levels and who fits the current agendas - perhaps  an ex-player instead of yet another corporate; perhaps a woman. Whoever they choose, I do hope it's a progressive move rather than more of the same.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

It completely escaped me for a moment that she could be in a same **** marriage. It just shows the difficulty and minefield surrounding language right now.

And what if it was a same s e x marriage? 

She just says "oh, its actually my wife"

And you go "oh, sorry, well will be nice to get to know you both"

Up to her whether she'd choose to be offended by that, onus isn't on you to tread on eggshells 24/7. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pugin said:

'Coloured', which has been recognised as inappropriate since the 1960's!

Not defending Clarke and I think he's a footballing dinosaur anyway, so lets get somebody who can progress the game and who understands the modern industry.... but if you ever watch unedited episodes of Only Fools and Horses or Minder from the 80's, you'll hear "coloured", "wog", "paki", and "half caste" which were all broadcast on the BBC. 

So i'm not sure that word was considered as inappropriate by wider society as you think.

Edited by TeemuVanBasten
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Not defending Clarke and I think he's a footballing dinosaur anyway, so lets get somebody who can progress the game and who understands the modern industry.... but if you ever watch unedited episodes of Only Fools and Horses or Minder from the 80's, you'll hear "coloured", "wog", "paki", and "half caste" which were all broadcast on the BBC. 

So i'm not sure that word was considered as inappropriate by wider society as you think.

Indeed. In 'not defending Greg Clarke' you have cast him in the same mould as Arthur Daley and Del Trotter. Good work!  Seriously, you are 'not defending' him impressively.

'Coloured' has very close associations with slavery and apartheid. That's why it is abhorrent. It was in the 1960's that black people reclaimed the word 'black' to describe themselves. You will remember 'Black is beautiful', if nothing else. 

It's all here, if interested 

https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/537/6381/6387/40828163633.pdf

Edited by Pugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we got to Wembley with Alex Neil I got to the ticket office just as they were about to unlock the doors. Went to the back of the queue to join Mrs Frank and said that the black guy in the ticket office had just unlocked the doors. The bloke in front of me proceeded to tell me how I should be using coloured and not black. I agree with canary wundaboy in that what seems to be acceptable one week isn’t the next and you feel like you’re walking on egg shells when this is discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit surprised that "coloured" isn't universally recognised as not ok. To me, it's linked to the categories used in apartheid but there are plenty of other negative connotations. But if other people aren't aware, then it's good that this has highlighted it.

 

On Greg Clarke specifically, I can't help thinking that in his role, he must have had numerous briefings and/or training sessions on diversity given its importance these days, and on media management too. If he said what he said despite all that, it's either hugely provocative, or downright stupid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FenwayFrank said:

When we got to Wembley with Alex Neil I got to the ticket office just as they were about to unlock the doors. Went to the back of the queue to join Mrs Frank and said that the black guy in the ticket office had just unlocked the doors. The bloke in front of me proceeded to tell me how I should be using coloured and not black. I agree with canary wundaboy in that what seems to be acceptable one week isn’t the next and you feel like you’re walking on egg shells when this is discussed.

Find it hard to believe you offended someone FF! 

Serious question, why was the ethnicity of the person who opened the doors relevant. Surely "the doors have been opened" would be sufficient. 

Edited by Greavsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Find it hard to believe you offended someone FF! 

Serious question, why was the ethnicity of the person who opened the doors relevant. Surely "the doors have been opened" would be sufficient. 

Not a surprise that you’ve suddenly appeared 😉, don’t you ever describe people you’ve just seen or spoken to ? If he’d have been ginger or bald, or if it had been a girl with blue hair I would have described them that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why Clarke has had to resign and think his position was untanable. He was stupid in an incredibly public forms and used outdated/clumsy language although if you read the full quotes in their context they are not as bad as they are being made to sound in the media reports and I don;t think he was being racist or indeed homophobic.

However, it disturbs me a bit that there is such a focus/outcry over sematics and words used these days and so little focus on intent or what is actually happening within an organisation. I don;t agree that you can divorce intent from what is said when considering whether someone is being racist which seems to be wherfe we are moving to (not talking about the Clarke comments here just generally). Clarke is a bit of an old school duffer but the FA are a fairly woke organisation these days and i suspect that the FA is hugely, hugely active in trying to stamp out racism and in working in ethnic minority communities and yet now its being labelled as racist again just because someone said the world coloured by mistake.

I'm sure this will provoke outrage but i do think that some of those in the "race" industry need to stop seising on people making the inadvertent occasional faux pas and focus more on genuine incidents of racist conduct and discrimination. I don't think that they do their cause a great service by finding offence in anything they can, in fact I think it tends to diminish sympathy for the genuine cause amongst a section of the population who just want to be able to talk openly about these things without being constantly tripped up or having their lives destroyed if they happen to accidentally say the wrong word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I understand why Clarke has had to resign and think his position was untanable. He was stupid in an incredibly public forms and used outdated/clumsy language although if you read the full quotes in their context they are not as bad as they are being made to sound in the media reports and I don;t think he was being racist or indeed homophobic.

However, it disturbs me a bit that there is such a focus/outcry over sematics and words used these days and so little focus on intent or what is actually happening within an organisation. I don;t agree that you can divorce intent from what is said when considering whether someone is being racist which seems to be wherfe we are moving to (not talking about the Clarke comments here just generally). Clarke is a bit of an old school duffer but the FA are a fairly woke organisation these days and i suspect that the FA is hugely, hugely active in trying to stamp out racism and in working in ethnic minority communities and yet now its being labelled as racist again just because someone said the world coloured by mistake.

I'm sure this will provoke outrage but i do think that some of those in the "race" industry need to stop seising on people making the inadvertent occasional faux pas and focus more on genuine incidents of racist conduct and discrimination. I don't think that they do their cause a great service by finding offence in anything they can, in fact I think it tends to diminish sympathy for the genuine cause amongst a section of the population who just want to be able to talk openly about these things without being constantly tripped up or having their lives destroyed if they happen to accidentally say the wrong word. 

The above post was brought to you by the Daily Mail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t he also suggest women don’t like being hit with a football, gay men have made a ‘lifestyle choice’ to be gay, and his IT department is made up of more south asians than Afro carribeans because of different ‘career interests’.

Was he playing some kind of offensive stereotype bingo in front of a parliamentary select committee? It really is like he was trying. Those individual remarks in isolation would have passed without comment but the whole performance was unacceptable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outdated and inappropriate language that isnt acceptable for a man at the top of any organisation, irrespective of his age or background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sgncfc said:

The FA now have a chance to actually employ someone who gets the game at all levels and who fits the current agendas - perhaps  an ex-player instead of yet another corporate; perhaps a woman. Whoever they choose, I do hope it's a progressive move rather than more of the same.

Perhaps they’ll go for Squeaky Clean Leftist Gary Lineker then no one where dare open their mouths 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WD40 said:

Didn’t he also suggest women don’t like being hit with a football, gay men have made a ‘lifestyle choice’ to be gay, and his IT department is made up of more south asians than Afro carribeans because of different ‘career interests’.

Was he playing some kind of offensive stereotype bingo in front of a parliamentary select committee? It really is like he was trying. Those individual remarks in isolation would have passed without comment but the whole performance was unacceptable.

I think he said coming out was a choice which is slightly different but yes it was a massively clumsy effort all round in front in a very public forum. I agree he had no choice but to resign given his high profile role in the organisation and the public nature of this incident.

However, today the media is just full of endless comments and debates about how "nothing has changed", how Football and the FA are inherently racist and how he was expressing racist views. I don't agree that is the case and the fact Clarke got his words wrong when addressing a bunch of MP's does not mean nothing has changed or that the FA is racist. i personally think football (with the FA often leading the way) is one of the least racist industries there is. The very fact he apparently soiught support from the FA Board for his position and was effectively made to resign within hours shows you things have changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, daly said:

Perhaps they’ll go for Squeaky Clean Leftist Gary Lineker then no one where dare open their mouths 

What does the above sentence,if it actually is a sentence, mean?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pugin said:

Greg Clarke was idiotic in four respects:

'Coloured', which has been recognised as inappropriate since the 1960's!

Disrespectful to woman footballers when referring to a ball being struck at them.

Referring to gay people as 'choosing a lifestyle'.

Making a broad generalisation about South East Asian players, based on what happens in his IT department.

It's what you might describe as the most chaotic involuntary resignation speech ever written 🙂

His colleagues let him face the committee on his own, without adult supervision, and the cynic in me wonders if they deliberately left him to throw himself under the bus, which he succeeded in doing. Four times.

“”””””Coloured which has been recognised as inappropriate since the 60’s””””

You’re way out there by a few decades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, daly said:

Perhaps they’ll go for Squeaky Clean Leftist Gary Lineker then no one where dare open their mouths 

 I'm not even going to try to work out what that means.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

What does the above sentence,if it actually is a sentence, mean?

Snap Corkio. It did make me think of this, possibly Ron Manager's finest moment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I'm a bit surprised that "coloured" isn't universally recognised as not ok. To me, it's linked to the categories used in apartheid but there are plenty of other negative connotations. But if other people aren't aware, then it's good that this has highlighted it.

 

On Greg Clarke specifically, I can't help thinking that in his role, he must have had numerous briefings and/or training sessions on diversity given its importance these days, and on media management too. If he said what he said despite all that, it's either hugely provocative, or downright stupid.

I don't believe that's true about the word "coloured" or that it has been inappropriate since the 1960s - that's just trying to rewrite history. The term is actually still used acceptably in South Africa by the black community (at least it was when I was last there two years ago) and if you Google it the BBC were still using it descriptively in articles as recently as 2015. It's only a comparatively recent change in the UK, but as ever when such things change, you look back and wonder how the hell we could have got it so wrong for so long.

The point you make about Greg Clarke and his apparent lack of media training is pertinent though - how can such an organisation not provide up to date guidance and training for their Chairman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sgncfc said:

I don't believe that's true about the word "coloured" or that it has been inappropriate since the 1960s - that's just trying to rewrite history. The term is actually still used acceptably in South Africa by the black community (at least it was when I was last there two years ago) and if you Google it the BBC were still using it descriptively in articles as recently as 2015. It's only a comparatively recent change in the UK, but as ever when such things change, you look back and wonder how the hell we could have got it so wrong for so long.

The point you make about Greg Clarke and his apparent lack of media training is pertinent though - how can such an organisation not provide up to date guidance and training for their Chairman?

A different debate, but that doesn't necessarily make it ok for others to use it. See the "n word" for one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...