Is this classed as Racism ? The lines are now so blurred does anyone know what's acceptable or not.
This should be a silly question to ask however very unfortunately it appears it's not given what is shown just now.
It's not racist at all and is slightly humorous. The lines are very blurred at the moment in these emotive times where restrictions are in place on most aspects of our lives.
Watched a bit of the football last night and saw Marcus Rashford's black power salute, and whether you agree with it or not, this could open a can of worms for sport authorities, it leaves them open for any sportsman who want to put their political, religious or what ever beliefs they have on to the field of play.
Watched a bit of the football last night and saw Marcus Rashford's black power salute, and whether you agree with it or not, this could open a can of worms for sport authorities, it leaves them open for any sportsman who want to put their political, religious or what ever beliefs they have on to the field of play.
Sportsmen and women should not, in my view use a 'world stage' in their chosen profession like football to show their political alliance.
I also don't think the BLM shirt name printing was very wise either. Will say again, it reeks of a distraction and maybe gets people talking about the wrong things.
Watched a bit of the football last night and saw Marcus Rashford's black power salute, and whether you agree with it or not, this could open a can of worms for sport authorities, it leaves them open for any sportsman who want to put their political, religious or what ever beliefs they have on to the field of play.
What about players who do a religious cross on their chest when they enter the field of play?
Players who celebrate by pointing up to the sky?
There is no can of worms whatsoever, this stuff has been going on for decades.
And in response to Cammy....
I think a footballer using a ''world stage'' to show solidarity and support for BLM is great and a perfect platform. Why would anyone be against anything that helps to highlight the ongoing inequality that black people face worldwide?
Seeing footballers this week kneel together before kick off was actually quite profound and exactly the type of image to portray to the world.
In a game still riddled with racism from the terraces, this sent out a powerful message.
Watched a bit of the football last night and saw Marcus Rashford's black power salute, and whether you agree with it or not, this could open a can of worms for sport authorities, it leaves them open for any sportsman who want to put their political, religious or what ever beliefs they have on to the field of play.
What about players who do a religious cross on their chest when they enter the field of play?
Players who celebrate by pointing up to the sky?
There is no can of worms whatsoever, this stuff has been going on for decades.
And in response to Cammy....
I think a footballer using a ''world stage'' to show solidarity and support for BLM is great and a perfect platform. Why would anyone be against anything that helps to highlight the ongoing inequality that black people face worldwide?
Seeing footballers this week kneel together before kick off was actually quite profound and exactly the type of image to portray to the world.
In a game still riddled with racism from the terraces, this sent out a powerful message.
There are loads looney facists and the like associated with teams accross Europe who won't see it as BLM but as a black power sign and think if it's okay do it then it's okay for them to do white power hand signs.
Watched a bit of the football last night and saw Marcus Rashford's black power salute, and whether you agree with it or not, this could open a can of worms for sport authorities, it leaves them open for any sportsman who want to put their political, religious or what ever beliefs they have on to the field of play.
What about players who do a religious cross on their chest when they enter the field of play?
Players who celebrate by pointing up to the sky?
There is no can of worms whatsoever, this stuff has been going on for decades.
And in response to Cammy....
I think a footballer using a ''world stage'' to show solidarity and support for BLM is great and a perfect platform. Why would anyone be against anything that helps to highlight the ongoing inequality that black people face worldwide?
Seeing footballers this week kneel together before kick off was actually quite profound and exactly the type of image to portray to the world.
In a game still riddled with racism from the terraces, this sent out a powerful message.
There are loads looney facists and the like associated with teams accross Europe who won't see it as BLM but as a black power sign and think if it's okay do it then it's okay for them to do white power hand signs.
That's quite a leap you've done there, but I don't think a ''looney fascist'' needs an excuse to showcase their ignorance.
If a known fascist footballer did a white power salute, and then tried to justify it because of BLM, then anyone level headed would see right through their smokescreen.
It's only fragile racists who are wary of the BLM movement.
Watched a bit of the football last night and saw Marcus Rashford's black power salute, and whether you agree with it or not, this could open a can of worms for sport authorities, it leaves them open for any sportsman who want to put their political, religious or what ever beliefs they have on to the field of play.
What about players who do a religious cross on their chest when they enter the field of play?
Players who celebrate by pointing up to the sky?
There is no can of worms whatsoever, this stuff has been going on for decades.
And in response to Cammy....
I think a footballer using a ''world stage'' to show solidarity and support for BLM is great and a perfect platform. Why would anyone be against anything that helps to highlight the ongoing inequality that black people face worldwide?
Seeing footballers this week kneel together before kick off was actually quite profound and exactly the type of image to portray to the world.
In a game still riddled with racism from the terraces, this sent out a powerful message.
There are loads looney facists and the like associated with teams accross Europe who won't see it as BLM but as a black power sign and think if it's okay do it then it's okay for them to do white power hand signs.
That's quite a leap you've done there, but I don't think a ''looney fascist'' needs an excuse to showcase their ignorance.
If a known fascist footballer did a white power salute, and then tried to justify it because of BLM, then anyone level headed would see right through their smokescreen.
It's only fragile racists who are wary of the BLM movement.
Paolo Di Canio got panned in the UK media for the Nazi arm gesture when playing for Lazio years ago and likely rightfully so.
I believe in equality too, you can't pick and choose equality if and when it suits though.
The BLM should be proactive and peaceful like the demonstration in Leeds last Sunday. There would be nothing I would like more than all humans to be treated equally and all to have the same opportunities. Skin colour and sex should not be a factor at all.
Watched a bit of the football last night and saw Marcus Rashford's black power salute, and whether you agree with it or not, this could open a can of worms for sport authorities, it leaves them open for any sportsman who want to put their political, religious or what ever beliefs they have on to the field of play.
What about players who do a religious cross on their chest when they enter the field of play?
Players who celebrate by pointing up to the sky?
There is no can of worms whatsoever, this stuff has been going on for decades.
And in response to Cammy....
I think a footballer using a ''world stage'' to show solidarity and support for BLM is great and a perfect platform. Why would anyone be against anything that helps to highlight the ongoing inequality that black people face worldwide?
Seeing footballers this week kneel together before kick off was actually quite profound and exactly the type of image to portray to the world.
In a game still riddled with racism from the terraces, this sent out a powerful message.
There are loads looney facists and the like associated with teams accross Europe who won't see it as BLM but as a black power sign and think if it's okay do it then it's okay for them to do white power hand signs.
That's quite a leap you've done there, but I don't think a ''looney fascist'' needs an excuse to showcase their ignorance.
If a known fascist footballer did a white power salute, and then tried to justify it because of BLM, then anyone level headed would see right through their smokescreen.
It's only fragile racists who are wary of the BLM movement.
Is it?
Do you support #DefundThePolice?
Would you like to live in CHAZ/CHOP, would you like to see the zone widen and strengthen?
The organisation and the slogan are not the same thing.
There are loads looney facists and the like associated with teams accross Europe who won't see it as BLM but as a black power sign and think if it's okay do it then it's okay for them to do white power hand signs.
That's quite a leap you've done there, but I don't think a ''looney fascist'' needs an excuse to showcase their ignorance.
If a known fascist footballer did a white power salute, and then tried to justify it because of BLM, then anyone level headed would see right through their smokescreen.
It's only fragile racists who are wary of the BLM movement.
Quite a leap from where ?
Facists love an excuse to give them a platform, a player from one of the most famous teams in the world doing a black power salute live on TV gives them loads of ammunition.
This sort of thing does still happen. Although, thankfully, it is a lot rarer now, in part due to things such as social media making it more difficult.
Racism has become more sneaky. Let's use public schools as an example. You are right, of course, that most of us could never aspire to Eton.
But when a job says "public school educated", or "well spoken" they tend to mean "White".
"This is very poor analysis" - Now I know how my students feel when I dish out the 'constructive feedback' although I do try to deliver it more in the form of a '$h1t sandwich'
"What would you do if you were in power and shown these findings? What does it point to that needs to change?" - I fear you are making the assumption that because I didn't include specific 'answers' in my post that I don't have any. I certainly do have suggestions, however, if I had included all of these in one post it would have been an extremely long post/ book/ series of books. Indeed, I have to offer specific guidance as I teach a lot of individuals who move into teaching, childcare and nursing careers and am usually tasked with ensuring they are well versed in anti-discriminatory practice.
"Environment leaves a lot of scope" - It does, although that doesn't make it inaccurate. It is a massive area of consideration.
"Do you think it’s a help or hindrance to tell young black people that the system is rigged against them, or is it better to show there are opportunities to succeed in this country if you work hard" - Okay, this is still a huge question but it is a bit more specific so I will give it a go...
You are basically arguing from a micro sociological perspective as opposed to a macro sociological perspective. Encouraging individuals and not telling them that 'the system is rigged against them' but instead 'showing them there are opportunities to succeed in the country' is squarely akin to telling poor people to 'pull their socks up'.
While this narrative might work on a few individuals, it ignores the systemic problems in society and the barriers faced by the group. Some examples are - as you mentioned - many from BAME backgrounds are more likely to live in more deprived areas. This, on average, means; poorer housing; longer commutes; lower quality local support services; lower quality education; more stress; higher crime levels; poorer transport networks; less employment opportunities; poorer mental and physical health etc etc. Now if all of this is true (it is, I can provide evidence if required) then it means that a poor black person is going to have to 'pull their socks up' a darn sight more than a white person in order to achieve a comparable level of success (on average).
The above highlights the problem with putting the responsibility to succeed at the feet of the individual. We (the public) are not all beginning at the same starting point in the race to succeed. This was highlighted by C Wright Mills talking about "personal troubles of milieu and the public issues of social structure". The analogy often used is that if one person is unemployed in society it is likely a 'personal trouble' and the solution may reasonably be expected to come from the individual. However, when millions are unemployed it is more likely to be a 'social issue' with a solution more likely to be found by reconsidering social policy.
One area I teach in is community development and while I emphasise the above so that students develop an understanding of the larger problem... There is indeed also room for 'individual responsibility', like you mentioned. In large part, because many of the larger issues may not change quickly so people have to make the best of 'the hand they have been dealt'. However, this 'asset model' towards individual social mobility is a temporary stop-gap that will most definitely not adequately address rising levels of inequality until the larger issues with social structure are tackled.
Ultimately I am not dismissing that there should be levels of individual responsibility. However, it is incredibly reductionist to suggest that black or poor people need to be more positive and 'realise there are opportunities to succeed in this country'. Any efforts to effectively address the issue require dialectical thinking towards a highly nuanced social problem. Sadly there is not always an appetite to solve said social problems because the elite are often quite happy with the status quo and would rather the masses pin the blame for their own lack of success on their own 'feckless' attitude.
"The two most predictive factors to future earnings are intelligence and conscientiousness." - No offence but it is incredibly ironic that you have accused me of not going into enough detail and wrote this. Are you arguing that if black people want good future earnings they just have to be 'conscientious' enough and they will succeed as well as any non-BAME individual? If so, then why are BAME disproportionately affected by poverty? Are you really saying that black people are inherently less conscientious?
Obviously, I assume you cannot be suggesting that as it is completely ridiculous.
"Once you standardise for poverty race drops out of the models" - I am confused? Are you saying that once you standardise for poverty, everyone is equally poor? Isn't that like saying if you only count people with £10k of savings, everyone has the same amount of savings?
If you are saying that BAME groups are not affected disproportionately by poverty then this is incorrect...
From the government's own study published 4 days ago...
"in 2019, people from all ethnic minority groups except the Indian, Chinese, White Irish and White Other groups were more likely than White British people to live in the most overall deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England"
"Reducing poverty and keeping kids fed and read are the keys to improving these outcomes." - These are structural solutions. Which is what I was alluding to in my original reply.
Watched a bit of the football last night and saw Marcus Rashford's black power salute, and whether you agree with it or not, this could open a can of worms for sport authorities, it leaves them open for any sportsman who want to put their political, religious or what ever beliefs they have on to the field of play.
What about players who do a religious cross on their chest when they enter the field of play?
Players who celebrate by pointing up to the sky?
There is no can of worms whatsoever, this stuff has been going on for decades.
And in response to Cammy....
I think a footballer using a ''world stage'' to show solidarity and support for BLM is great and a perfect platform. Why would anyone be against anything that helps to highlight the ongoing inequality that black people face worldwide?
Seeing footballers this week kneel together before kick off was actually quite profound and exactly the type of image to portray to the world.
In a game still riddled with racism from the terraces, this sent out a powerful message.
There are loads looney facists and the like associated with teams accross Europe who won't see it as BLM but as a black power sign and think if it's okay do it then it's okay for them to do white power hand signs.
That's quite a leap you've done there, but I don't think a ''looney fascist'' needs an excuse to showcase their ignorance.
If a known fascist footballer did a white power salute, and then tried to justify it because of BLM, then anyone level headed would see right through their smokescreen.
It's only fragile racists who are wary of the BLM movement.
Is it?
Do you support #DefundThePolice?
Would you like to live in CHAZ/CHOP, would you like to see the zone widen and strengthen?
The organisation and the slogan are not the same thing.
Look at all the gammon that came out last Saturday to 'protect the statues'. Fragile little snowflakes the lot of them.
I have no doubt that some people will use their 'fear' of the organisation as a way to sanitise their disdain for the slogan.
Defunding the police certainly has its merits if done correctly and the funds spent accordingly. It's a good discussion to have.
There are loads looney facists and the like associated with teams accross Europe who won't see it as BLM but as a black power sign and think if it's okay do it then it's okay for them to do white power hand signs.
That's quite a leap you've done there, but I don't think a ''looney fascist'' needs an excuse to showcase their ignorance.
If a known fascist footballer did a white power salute, and then tried to justify it because of BLM, then anyone level headed would see right through their smokescreen.
It's only fragile racists who are wary of the BLM movement.
Quite a leap from where ?
Facists love an excuse to give them a platform, a player from one of the most famous teams in the world doing a black power salute live on TV gives them loads of ammunition.
The leap was from a black player doing a hand gesture of solidarity during a high profile BLM movement, to fascist players doing white power salutes in response to that and thinking it would be ok.
Fascists might be thick but even they know how feeble an excuse that would be. And it didn't give them any ammunition whatsoever, how did you even come to that conclusion?
If a fascist footballer is gonna do fascist things, they will do them regardless. And any smokescreen about it being a retaliation for against BLM gestures will be exactly that, a smokescreen.
Did Rashford's gesture make you uncomfortable?
Edit....so tilting when people don't quote properly.
The leap was from a black player doing a hand gesture of solidarity during a high profile BLM movement, to fascist players doing white power salutes in response to that and thinking it would be ok.
Where did I say I thought it was ok ?
Fascists might be thick but even they know how feeble an excuse that would be. And it didn't give them any ammunition whatsoever, how did you even come to that conclusion?
Thats what they do, latch on to any excuse, look back through history.
Did Rashford's gesture make you uncomfortable?
Not in the slightest, I just think a football pitch isn't the place to do it.
Edit....so tilting when people don't quote properly.
The leap was from a black player doing a hand gesture of solidarity during a high profile BLM movement, to fascist players doing white power salutes in response to that and thinking it would be ok.
Fascists might be thick but even they know how feeble an excuse that would be. And it didn't give them any ammunition whatsoever, how did you even come to that conclusion?
If a fascist footballer is gonna do fascist things, they will do them regardless. And any smokescreen about it being a retaliation for against BLM gestures will be exactly that, a smokescreen.
Did Rashford's gesture make you uncomfortable?
.
WTF! Seriously!!!
I knew my senses were right
The boldened part is how twisted things are, to even ask a question like that. At least from my perspective. I do not have a dog in the fight and the movement should be called All Lives Matter .....however onto the bold
Marcus Rashford is a hero to millions on and off the pitch with the "gesture" and he is one footballer I have the upmost respect for pushing free meals for school kids. I real footballing role model that we could all learn a little from.
Skin tone should have absolutely no bearing on anything in an ideal world. We do not live in one so we try to do our best and have our own thoughts on things.
Like any movement or protest, it should stay peaceful and non-aggressive. When emotions get fired up it's a little too much for some and this has resulted in deaths.
The George Floyd incident was beyond awful and from what I have read in this thread I doubt anyone would think otherwise.
If you did mean flash the black power or take the knee then he can do it to his hearts content outwith the football field. Don't think doing it in front of millions of kids and supporters while they are tuning in to watch a game of football is a very good move. Agendas /politics should not be mixed on any sporting field I reckon.
If this exchange is going to prove anything, it will be how inefficient discussing such matters is on a forum. I've tried really hard and spent most of my morning to make myself understood below, I hope some of it helps.
"Environment leaves a lot of scope" - It does, although that doesn't make it inaccurate. It is a massive area of consideration.
That was my point, environment is a massive area of consideration, so we should look at it more closely and examine the factors that build environment - not simply say 'it's not genetic, so it must be environment, therefore institutionalised racism exists'.
There have been reports that concluded that institutionalised racism existed in the UK, most notably in the police force in the Macpherson report. A better argument suggesting such racism is still present would be to point to the 200-odd recommendations that were put forward by such reports that haven't been implemented. Pointing to outcome figures is troublesome, as it can take a very long time for any change to earn through.
Encouraging individuals and not telling them that 'the system is rigged against them' but instead 'showing them there are opportunities to succeed in the country' is squarely akin to telling poor people to 'pull their socks up'.
I can see why you would say that, but I would argue telling someone the system is set up to hold them back would discourage them even trying to study and improve themselves, which is the best thing an individual could do.
Are you saying that once you standardise for poverty, everyone is equally poor? Isn't that like saying if you only count people with £10k of savings, everyone has the same amount of savings?
No, if you want to find causality when predictive modelling it's necessary to standardise all explanatory variables aside from that you're testing, it removes correlation and is the basis of all multivariate analysis. You can look at the effect of race on crime stats on a one-way basis for example, and suggest that race is the reason for crime. However you then add poverty into the model and compare the effect of wealth on crime within each racial group. What you'll find is that poverty (one of the environmental factors) is the reason for the disparity, not race - that is an equally poor white/black group would be seen to commit the same proportion of crime.
many from BAME backgrounds are more likely to live in more deprived areas. This, on average, means; poorer housing; longer commutes; lower quality local support services; lower quality education; more stress; higher crime levels; poorer transport networks; less employment opportunities; poorer mental and physical health etc etc. Now if all of this is true (it is, I can provide evidence if required) then it means that a poor black person is going to have to 'pull their socks up' a darn sight more than a white person in order to achieve a comparable level of success (on average).
No evidence required, I believe this to be true also. If I have explained the analysis point well enough I hope you can now see that these are all the factors you'd want in your model. So whilst we would agree that a white person on average will achieve more success that the black person given the same force applied to sock, once we agree that the above are the contributory factors we would say that a white person with the same housing, same commute, same support service, same education, same stress, same crime level, etc etc as a black person would be expected to achieve the same level of success. There could be some residual left that you might then determine is explained by race, but I hope you can see that the effect of race on outcome is way diminished once all of the other factors are accounted for.
Are you really saying that black people are inherently less conscientious?
Nope, I am not really saying this, I never said this at all. Such misinterpretations are what makes this such a delicate matter to discuss. What I'm saying is that if you have two people with all characteristics equal other than conscientiousness, then the one with higher conscientiousness will be more likely to succeed. This is why it's important not to discourage conscientiousness by pushing a narrative that 'no matter what you do, you won't get as far as x'.
Are you arguing that if black people want good future earnings they just have to be 'conscientious' enough and they will succeed as well as any non-BAME individual?
Again, no, because they are currently disproportionately represented across buckets in the explanatory variable classifications as defined earlier.
why are BAME disproportionately affected by poverty?
Ok, so now we're getting to it. This is likely going to be due to historic racism/disparity of opportunity, how wealth is inherited, and problems relating to social mobility such that once you're poor it's very difficult to overcome all the things that come with that. A Universal Basic Income, to relieve day-to-day stresses on people so they can be sure of food and shelter to transcend mere survival and build from there, is very convincingly argued for in Rutger Bregman's Utopia for Realists.
Ultimately, we need to get to the root of the disparity, and then we need societal change to improve any causal factors identified. Have we not improved from the 1920s / 1960s / 1980s or have things gotten worse? A lot has happened recently to help people recognise bias in employment, and take steps to combat it, not suggesting this is enough, but it will take time for any changes to earn through.
Some suggest we need an over-correction and to positively discriminate in the short-term to manage various quotas. Some talk about reparations, payments in lieu of historic inequalities that manifest themselves in today's outcome figures. There are conversations to be had on all of these topics, but I think most important is understanding the real reasons for the inequalities we're currently seeing.
Seeing the worst in our society coming out and lashing out against police etc is not evidence that the UK is 'full of racists' as I've seen claimed. When asked what success would look like during the BLM march one lady said 'not to see any more black people dying at the hands of police', this is not a realistic expectation given the nature of policing - particularly in the US.
I just despair when certain groups are **** bent on finding racism where it may not exist, I think it's divisive and likely to cause more problems than it solves. I am however all for calling out racism where it is found, and doing proper analysis in the pursuit of moving things forward.
I honestly believe the UK is one of the best places in the world to be living for minorities, and migrants are attracted to the UK because they believe they can better themselves here. We should be proud of that, but continue to try to improve.
Defunding the police certainly has its merits if done correctly and the funds spent accordingly. It's a good discussion to have.
It is a good discussion to have - I'm not sure how it works. In CHAZ, they have replaced the trained and regulated police enforcing democratically agreed laws with untrained unregulated individuals with guns enforcing whatever it is they want to do. The first murder in the zone was reported yesterday, police won't/can't do anything to bring people to justice. It's very sad and very concerning to be happening in the middle of Seattle.
A football pitch is a perfect place to do it. The game is still riddled with racism. The players, from all backgrounds, are uniting against this. Premier League matches attract large global audiences, surely this is a great platform to show solidarity for the ongoing equality fight that black people across the world face everyday. You want to get that message out as far and wide as possible. Doing this with an audience of millions is exactly the point. Even better if there are loads of kids watching. Getting them educated on topics of this nature from a young age can't be a bad thing. I'd hate to see the younger generations turn out like the middle aged gammon that completely embarrassed themselves (and the nation) across the country last Saturday.
Footballers are often criticized for being greedy, selfish, detached from reality and living in their own bubble. Yet when they come together in support of social injustice they again face criticism. We should welcome footballers having a social conscience and not being afraid to showcase their support.
Cammy, I asked Rab if the gesture made him uncomfortable as his rhetoric was suggesting, and continues to suggest, that it did.
The fact that you have said 'all lives matter' confirms you really don't get it. You simply don't get it.
Comments
It's not racist at all and is slightly humorous. The lines are very blurred at the moment in these emotive times where restrictions are in place on most aspects of our lives.
Cammy
I also don't think the BLM shirt name printing was very wise either. Will say again, it reeks of a distraction and maybe gets people talking about the wrong things.
Cammy
Think it was a week or so ago that was banded about.
Cammy
Players who celebrate by pointing up to the sky?
There is no can of worms whatsoever, this stuff has been going on for decades.
And in response to Cammy....
I think a footballer using a ''world stage'' to show solidarity and support for BLM is great and a perfect platform.
Why would anyone be against anything that helps to highlight the ongoing inequality that black people face worldwide?
Seeing footballers this week kneel together before kick off was actually quite profound and exactly the type of image to portray to the world.
In a game still riddled with racism from the terraces, this sent out a powerful message.
If a known fascist footballer did a white power salute, and then tried to justify it because of BLM, then anyone level headed would see right through their smokescreen.
It's only fragile racists who are wary of the BLM movement.
I believe in equality too, you can't pick and choose equality if and when it suits though.
The BLM should be proactive and peaceful like the demonstration in Leeds last Sunday. There would be nothing I would like more than all humans to be treated equally and all to have the
same opportunities. Skin colour and sex should not be a factor at all.
Cammy
Do you support #DefundThePolice?
Would you like to live in CHAZ/CHOP, would you like to see the zone widen and strengthen?
The organisation and the slogan are not the same thing.
There are loads looney facists and the like associated with teams accross Europe who won't see it as BLM but as a black power sign and think if it's okay do it then it's okay for them to do white power hand signs.
That's quite a leap you've done there, but I don't think a ''looney fascist'' needs an excuse to showcase their ignorance.
If a known fascist footballer did a white power salute, and then tried to justify it because of BLM, then anyone level headed would see right through their smokescreen.
It's only fragile racists who are wary of the BLM movement.
Quite a leap from where ?
Facists love an excuse to give them a platform, a player from one of the most famous teams in the world doing a black power salute live on TV gives them loads of ammunition.
"This is very poor analysis" - Now I know how my students feel when I dish out the 'constructive feedback' although I do try to deliver it more in the form of a '$h1t sandwich'
"What would you do if you were in power and shown these findings? What does it point to that needs to change?" - I fear you are making the assumption that because I didn't include specific 'answers' in my post that I don't have any. I certainly do have suggestions, however, if I had included all of these in one post it would have been an extremely long post/ book/ series of books. Indeed, I have to offer specific guidance as I teach a lot of individuals who move into teaching, childcare and nursing careers and am usually tasked with ensuring they are well versed in anti-discriminatory practice.
"Environment leaves a lot of scope" - It does, although that doesn't make it inaccurate. It is a massive area of consideration.
"Do you think it’s a help or hindrance to tell young black people that the system is rigged against them, or is it better to show there are opportunities to succeed in this country if you work hard" - Okay, this is still a huge question but it is a bit more specific so I will give it a go...
You are basically arguing from a micro sociological perspective as opposed to a macro sociological perspective. Encouraging individuals and not telling them that 'the system is rigged against them' but instead 'showing them there are opportunities to succeed in the country' is squarely akin to telling poor people to 'pull their socks up'.
While this narrative might work on a few individuals, it ignores the systemic problems in society and the barriers faced by the group. Some examples are - as you mentioned - many from BAME backgrounds are more likely to live in more deprived areas. This, on average, means; poorer housing; longer commutes; lower quality local support services; lower quality education; more stress; higher crime levels; poorer transport networks; less employment opportunities; poorer mental and physical health etc etc. Now if all of this is true (it is, I can provide evidence if required) then it means that a poor black person is going to have to 'pull their socks up' a darn sight more than a white person in order to achieve a comparable level of success (on average).
The above highlights the problem with putting the responsibility to succeed at the feet of the individual. We (the public) are not all beginning at the same starting point in the race to succeed. This was highlighted by C Wright Mills talking about "personal troubles of milieu and the public issues of social structure". The analogy often used is that if one person is unemployed in society it is likely a 'personal trouble' and the solution may reasonably be expected to come from the individual. However, when millions are unemployed it is more likely to be a 'social issue' with a solution more likely to be found by reconsidering social policy.
One area I teach in is community development and while I emphasise the above so that students develop an understanding of the larger problem... There is indeed also room for 'individual responsibility', like you mentioned. In large part, because many of the larger issues may not change quickly so people have to make the best of 'the hand they have been dealt'. However, this 'asset model' towards individual social mobility is a temporary stop-gap that will most definitely not adequately address rising levels of inequality until the larger issues with social structure are tackled.
Ultimately I am not dismissing that there should be levels of individual responsibility. However, it is incredibly reductionist to suggest that black or poor people need to be more positive and 'realise there are opportunities to succeed in this country'. Any efforts to effectively address the issue require dialectical thinking towards a highly nuanced social problem. Sadly there is not always an appetite to solve said social problems because the elite are often quite happy with the status quo and would rather the masses pin the blame for their own lack of success on their own 'feckless' attitude.
"The two most predictive factors to future earnings are intelligence and conscientiousness." - No offence but it is incredibly ironic that you have accused me of not going into enough detail and wrote this. Are you arguing that if black people want good future earnings they just have to be 'conscientious' enough and they will succeed as well as any non-BAME individual? If so, then why are BAME disproportionately affected by poverty? Are you really saying that black people are inherently less conscientious?
Obviously, I assume you cannot be suggesting that as it is completely ridiculous.
"Once you standardise for poverty race drops out of the models" - I am confused? Are you saying that once you standardise for poverty, everyone is equally poor? Isn't that like saying if you only count people with £10k of savings, everyone has the same amount of savings?
If you are saying that BAME groups are not affected disproportionately by poverty then this is incorrect...
From the government's own study published 4 days ago...
"in 2019, people from all ethnic minority groups except the Indian, Chinese, White Irish and White Other groups were more likely than White British people to live in the most overall deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in England"
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/people-living-in-deprived-neighbourhoods/latest
"Reducing poverty and keeping kids fed and read are the keys to improving these outcomes." - These are structural solutions. Which is what I was alluding to in my original reply.
Fragile little snowflakes the lot of them.
I have no doubt that some people will use their 'fear' of the organisation as a way to sanitise their disdain for the slogan.
Defunding the police certainly has its merits if done correctly and the funds spent accordingly. It's a good discussion to have.
If a known fascist footballer did a white power salute, and then tried to justify it because of BLM, then anyone level headed would see right through their smokescreen.
It's only fragile racists who are wary of the BLM movement.
Quite a leap from where ?
Facists love an excuse to give them a platform, a player from one of the most famous teams in the world doing a black power salute live on TV gives them loads of ammunition.
The leap was from a black player doing a hand gesture of solidarity during a high profile BLM movement, to fascist players doing white power salutes in response to that and thinking it would be ok.
Fascists might be thick but even they know how feeble an excuse that would be. And it didn't give them any ammunition whatsoever, how did you even come to that conclusion?
If a fascist footballer is gonna do fascist things, they will do them regardless. And any smokescreen about it being a retaliation for against BLM gestures will be exactly that, a smokescreen.
Did Rashford's gesture make you uncomfortable?
Edit....so tilting when people don't quote properly.
Where did I say I thought it was ok ?
Fascists might be thick but even they know how feeble an excuse that would be. And it didn't give them any ammunition whatsoever, how did you even come to that conclusion?
Thats what they do, latch on to any excuse, look back through history.
Did Rashford's gesture make you uncomfortable?
Not in the slightest, I just think a football pitch isn't the place to do it.
Edit....so tilting when people don't quote properly.
Keep tilting then.
The leap was from a black player doing a hand gesture of solidarity during a high profile BLM movement, to fascist players doing white power salutes in response to that and thinking it would be ok.
Fascists might be thick but even they know how feeble an excuse that would be. And it didn't give them any ammunition whatsoever, how did you even come to that conclusion?
If a fascist footballer is gonna do fascist things, they will do them regardless. And any smokescreen about it being a retaliation for against BLM gestures will be exactly that, a smokescreen.
Did Rashford's gesture make you uncomfortable?
.
WTF! Seriously!!!
I knew my senses were right
The boldened part is how twisted things are, to even ask a question like that. At least from my perspective. I do not have a dog in the fight and the movement should be called All Lives Matter .....however onto the bold
Marcus Rashford is a hero to millions on and off the pitch with the "gesture" and he is one footballer I have the upmost respect for pushing free meals for school kids. I real footballing role model that we could all learn a little from.
Skin tone should have absolutely no bearing on anything in an ideal world. We do not live in one so we try to do our best and have our own thoughts on things.
Like any movement or protest, it should stay peaceful and non-aggressive. When emotions get fired up it's a little too much for some and this has resulted in deaths.
The George Floyd incident was beyond awful and from what I have read in this thread I doubt anyone would think otherwise.
If you did mean flash the black power or take the knee then he can do it to his hearts content outwith the football field. Don't think doing it in front of millions of kids and supporters while they are tuning in to watch a game of football is a very good move. Agendas /politics should not be mixed on any sporting field I reckon.
Cammy
Uncle Ben's rice never the same again. Are they going to scrap the name too?
Sure I had that the other night as it happens.
The trusty Daily Mail. A couple of readers take on the story.
There have been reports that concluded that institutionalised racism existed in the UK, most notably in the police force in the Macpherson report. A better argument suggesting such racism is still present would be to point to the 200-odd recommendations that were put forward by such reports that haven't been implemented. Pointing to outcome figures is troublesome, as it can take a very long time for any change to earn through. I can see why you would say that, but I would argue telling someone the system is set up to hold them back would discourage them even trying to study and improve themselves, which is the best thing an individual could do. No, if you want to find causality when predictive modelling it's necessary to standardise all explanatory variables aside from that you're testing, it removes correlation and is the basis of all multivariate analysis. You can look at the effect of race on crime stats on a one-way basis for example, and suggest that race is the reason for crime. However you then add poverty into the model and compare the effect of wealth on crime within each racial group. What you'll find is that poverty (one of the environmental factors) is the reason for the disparity, not race - that is an equally poor white/black group would be seen to commit the same proportion of crime. No evidence required, I believe this to be true also. If I have explained the analysis point well enough I hope you can now see that these are all the factors you'd want in your model. So whilst we would agree that a white person on average will achieve more success that the black person given the same force applied to sock, once we agree that the above are the contributory factors we would say that a white person with the same housing, same commute, same support service, same education, same stress, same crime level, etc etc as a black person would be expected to achieve the same level of success. There could be some residual left that you might then determine is explained by race, but I hope you can see that the effect of race on outcome is way diminished once all of the other factors are accounted for. Having explained the above, I hope it's now clear that I am not saying this. Nope, I am not really saying this, I never said this at all. Such misinterpretations are what makes this such a delicate matter to discuss. What I'm saying is that if you have two people with all characteristics equal other than conscientiousness, then the one with higher conscientiousness will be more likely to succeed. This is why it's important not to discourage conscientiousness by pushing a narrative that 'no matter what you do, you won't get as far as x'. Again, no, because they are currently disproportionately represented across buckets in the explanatory variable classifications as defined earlier. Ok, so now we're getting to it. This is likely going to be due to historic racism/disparity of opportunity, how wealth is inherited, and problems relating to social mobility such that once you're poor it's very difficult to overcome all the things that come with that. A Universal Basic Income, to relieve day-to-day stresses on people so they can be sure of food and shelter to transcend mere survival and build from there, is very convincingly argued for in Rutger Bregman's Utopia for Realists.
Ultimately, we need to get to the root of the disparity, and then we need societal change to improve any causal factors identified. Have we not improved from the 1920s / 1960s / 1980s or have things gotten worse? A lot has happened recently to help people recognise bias in employment, and take steps to combat it, not suggesting this is enough, but it will take time for any changes to earn through.
Some suggest we need an over-correction and to positively discriminate in the short-term to manage various quotas. Some talk about reparations, payments in lieu of historic inequalities that manifest themselves in today's outcome figures. There are conversations to be had on all of these topics, but I think most important is understanding the real reasons for the inequalities we're currently seeing.
Seeing the worst in our society coming out and lashing out against police etc is not evidence that the UK is 'full of racists' as I've seen claimed. When asked what success would look like during the BLM march one lady said 'not to see any more black people dying at the hands of police', this is not a realistic expectation given the nature of policing - particularly in the US.
I just despair when certain groups are **** bent on finding racism where it may not exist, I think it's divisive and likely to cause more problems than it solves. I am however all for calling out racism where it is found, and doing proper analysis in the pursuit of moving things forward.
I honestly believe the UK is one of the best places in the world to be living for minorities, and migrants are attracted to the UK because they believe they can better themselves here. We should be proud of that, but continue to try to improve.
A football pitch is a perfect place to do it.
The game is still riddled with racism.
The players, from all backgrounds, are uniting against this.
Premier League matches attract large global audiences, surely this is a great platform to show solidarity for the ongoing equality fight that black people across the world face everyday. You want to get that message out as far and wide as possible. Doing this with an audience of millions is exactly the point. Even better if there are loads of kids watching.
Getting them educated on topics of this nature from a young age can't be a bad thing.
I'd hate to see the younger generations turn out like the middle aged gammon that completely embarrassed themselves (and the nation) across the country last Saturday.
Footballers are often criticized for being greedy, selfish, detached from reality and living in their own bubble. Yet when they come together in support of social injustice they again face criticism. We should welcome footballers having a social conscience and not being afraid to showcase their support.
Cammy, I asked Rab if the gesture made him uncomfortable as his rhetoric was suggesting, and continues to suggest, that it did.
The fact that you have said 'all lives matter' confirms you really don't get it. You simply don't get it.