The "lazy black player" stereotype

[Cassidy]

Realist, negative, whatever you like. It's still the wrong attitude if we want things to change going forward imo.

Do you have any thoughts on what I asked Villain above btw? You often seem involved in these conversations so I'd be interested in your views if you have time mate.

To be honest I know why you say this, but unless you understand where I am coming from you wouldn't understand what I meant.

I am realistic, and people/humans in general as a whole don't want top change certain things and never will. Anyway thats another conversation all together. Its like thinking you could eradicate violence from the world, never gong to happen. You can only control and minimise it.

As to your question I don't think anyone would say you shouldn't call a player lazy if he is lazy just because he is black. However the OP was bringing up the point that black players are very often labeled lazy or dumb or having attitude problems and disproportionally to their white counter parts. That is the issue, why is that?

What you can't discount is how they are depicted and talked about in the media as Sterling was alluding to only the other week.

The way forward? Ask yourself why black players are label in this way disproportionally to their white counterparts? Be willing to understand the biases that exist.

The media needs to be more accountable for how they talk about certain players for one.

Understand the connotations and chose your words carefully.

 

[villain]

Pretty much most of the #10s (irrespective of color) have been called lazy or words to the effect. Luxury player is a more polite way saying lazy. From Riquelme, to Pirlo to Ronaldinho...the concept lazy is pretty much universal to anyone, esp forwards/AMs who do not contribute defensively. I doubt lazy is anyhow restricted to black players.

The stereotype is attributed to black people not players, i'm not referring to specifically to athletes/football players, and neither was the poster in question.

 

[Cassidy]

The thing is, you just don't know what other posters have in mind when saying things. So accusing someone as being racist on what you think they're thinking, is a wrong thing to do, if you can't back it up with any prove.

I didn't call anyone racist and I hope you're not saying I did.
Whenever the term racism s brought up people immediately get on the defensive and assume they are being called one.
My general point was that if you read the thread you will realise that even after all the noise about racism in football, it is still very much prevalent intentionally or not. I do not see it being eradicated because you would need to eradicate it from society as a whole.

 

[crossy1686]

I agree there's racism, obviously, but calling Lukaku fat and not so smart isn't racist, it's stating the bleeding obvious, if we're not allowed to call a black player shit/overweight/thick then that's racist in its self.

@crossy1686 that silver back gorilla comment (I didn't see it, and haven't really been in player performances threads) was a little daft, but doesn't make it racist, could be taken in that context, so the poster shouldn't have used that analogy.

It's fine to say anyone is fat/shit/overweight, no one is saying you can't say those things just because of someone's skin colour. The smartness thing is however more subjective. Lukaku actually speaks about 4 or 5 different languages, many people on here struggle to speak one and don't have an education so who's smart and who's not? People should really ask themselves these questions before making such comments.

And regarding the gorilla comment. It was about the most racist thing I've seen on this forum, don't make excuses for people like that. The comment was something along the lines of "If we swapped Lukaku with a silver back gorilla, no one would notice". If you would care to defend that you should probably ask yourself why you feel the need to.

I understand that people get upset about people getting upset on behalf of other people or the 'PC brigade' but it's 2018 and you can't just say the stupidest shit that pops into your head anymore, it's not okay. Segregation and ignorance are real, they exist everywhere. It's important that it's challenged so people can be educated on why it's not okay to say certain things anymore. These comments aren't funny and they just hurt people on the receiving end.

 

[Isotope]

I didn't call anyone racist and I hope you're not saying I did.
Whenever the term racism s brought up people immediately get on the defensive and assume they are being called one.
My general point was that if you read the thread you will realise that even after all the noise about racism in football, it is still very much prevalent intentionally or not. I do not see it being eradicated because you would need to eradicate it from society as a whole.

Yeh.. Agreed with that. On defensive side, I think most people just don't like on being told of what they can't say. There's also annoyance about people complain a lot nowadays. Well sometimes it's necessary, but some just take advantage of it or taking it too much further.

Save to say that people have different tolerance and life experience, thus it makes it hard to come on the same terms.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

The smartness thing is however more subjective. Lukaku actually speaks about 4 or 5 different languages, many people on here struggle to speak one and don't have an education so who's smart and who's not? People should really ask themselves these questions before making such comments.

How is that even relevant? Smart here has a footballing context. Him able to speak 4 languages has nothing to with what is expected of him in the pitch.

 

[crossy1686]

How is that even relevant? Smart here has a footballing context. Him able to speak 4 languages has nothing to with what is expected of him in the pitch.

What makes a smart footballer and what makes a stupid footballer in footballing sense? If we can define this I'll happily concede my point.

 

[Kinsella]

A question I'd like to ask what do 'people of colour' make of being designated a 'person of colour'?

It comes across as a patronising term imo.

 

[Cassidy]

Yeh.. Agreed with that. On defensive side, I think most people just don't like on being told of what they can't say. There's also annoyance about people complain a lot nowadays. Well sometimes it's necessary, but some just take advantage of it or taking it too much further.

Save to say that people have different tolerance and life experience, thus it makes it hard to come on the same terms.

Hence why I said, it won't be eradicated.

BTW this itself is a big issue, people have always been complaining btw, but check what Gullit said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46581645

The attitude that exists that people don't want to be told what they can and can't say over understanding the issues leads to what Gullit said above. That is the reason I said if you read this thread....

I mean the fact that people can be annoyed that people complain about living in a racist world should tell you all you need to know.

 

[villain]

A question I'd like to ask what do 'people of colour' think of being designated a 'person of colour'? It comes across as a patronising term imo.

We don't have the luxury of being deemed the default like white people do, so it's a necessary evil.

 

[Sayros]

A question I'd like to ask what do 'people of colour' make of being designated a 'person of colour'?

It comes across as a patronising term imo.

That's item #27 on the racism agenda that we will be dealing with over the next decade, one thing at a time.

 

[Jippy]

Posters who continuously go on about Pogba's hair and Lukaku's laziness probably have implicit biases against black people and they should really try to be more sensible and considerate, but what I'm seeing here (correct me if I'm wrong) is posters who makes a one-off comment about Pogba or Lukaku are being painted with the same brush as the first type of posters by some folks. I don't think that's the way forward.

Beckham changing his haistyle used to make national news ffs. I think more bleat about his hair because of his showbiz flashiness, while on the pitch his performances are patchy at best.

It's stupid that people think players should have no fun or life outside work when the team is struggling, but it's hardly a new phenomena.

 

[Schneckerl]

Thread title should be "lazy fat player" stereotype

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

What makes a smart footballer and what makes a stupid footballer in footballing sense? If we can define this I'll happily concede my point.

You'll get it when you see their performances on the pitch.

 

[Cassidy]

That's item #27 on the racism agenda that we will be dealing with over the next decade, one thing at a time.

Ahhh man... well by 2050 Africa will account for more than half the population growth of the world, so maybe then black/coloured people would have to be default...

 

[Vato]

We don't have the luxury of being deemed the default like white people do, so it's a necessary evil.

Luxury? Christ...

 

[Cassidy]

You'll get it when you see their performances on the pitch.

Only if you are able to watch objectively without preconceived conscious or unconscious biases.

 

[villain]

Luxury? Christ...

People of colour have to be defined by their ethnicity as a differentiator, white people don't need to be because they are assumed to be the default.

Am I wrong in this?

 

[JSArsenal]

A question I'd like to ask what do 'people of colour' make of being designated a 'person of colour'?

It comes across as a patronising term imo.

When you think of stuff like this, you have to consider the way the term arose in the first place. Somewhere between slavery and here, people decided that using the N-word in public life to refer to a black person wasn't politically correct. Then the word negro came into fashion, followed by "person of colour", "African-American" and "black person". So when you look at how minorities were referred to in the past, people regard "person of colour" as an "improvement".

I have much the same problem with the term "African-American". Most black people in America have family roots there dating back centuries for obvious reasons, yet the grandson/son of Italian immigrants isn't referred to as an Italian-American, but simply an American.

What is the difference between the two? Why not simply refer to all citizens born there as Americans.

This probably isn't the thread for that discussion though.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Have to say we’ve gone through the looking glass when anyone who brings up the hairstyle of a football player who regularly posts updates on his latest haircut - including fecking videos of him getting his hair styled - risks being accused of being a racist.

The lazy, stupid stuff is much more likely to be sinister IMO. See Ron Atkinson.

 

[villain]

When you think of stuff like this, you have to consider the way the term arose in the first place. Somewhere between slavery and here, people decided that using the N-word in public life to refer to a black person wasn't politically correct. Then the word negro came into fashion, followed by "person of colour", "African-American" and "black person". So when you look at how minorities were referred to in the past, people regard "person of colour" as an "improvement".

I have much the same problem with the term "African-American". Most black people in America have family roots there dating back centuries for obvious reasons, yet the grandson/son of Italian immigrants isn't referred to as an Italian-American, but simply an American.

What is the difference between the two? Why not simply refer to all citizens born there as Americans.

This probably isn't the thread for that discussion though.

Great point, especially the Italian-American example.
African Americans are just as, if not more 'American' by way of family heritage dating back centuries. However they are always differentiated by their skin colour.

 

[Kinsella]

We don't have the luxury of being deemed the default like white people do, so it's a necessary evil.

I doubt you'll be able to answer the question but how common is that view?

I don't know the ethnicity of Barca84 or Cassidy for example, but when white people (or, to be specific, some white people) use the term, I get the impression that self-congratulation is a motivating factor for doing so. It's almost like a display of moral virtuousness, with an emphasis on the word display.

When you think of stuff like this, you have to consider the way the term arose in the first place. Somewhere between slavery and here, people decided that using the N-word in public life to refer to a black person wasn't politically correct. Then the word negro came into fashion, followed by "person of colour", "African-American" and "black person". So when you look at how minorities were referred to in the past, people regard "person of colour" as an "improvement".

I'm aware of the origin, I suppose the question is at what point do such terms perpetuate that which they are seeking to alleviate?

I have much the same problem with the term "African-American". Most black people in America have family roots there dating back centuries for obvious reasons, yet the grandson/son of Italian immigrants isn't referred to as an Italian-American, but simply an American.

What is the difference between the two? Why not simply refer to all citizens born there as Americans.

This probably isn't the thread for that discussion though.

Irish-American is pretty common too. I've no idea how common within America itself though, relative to African-American.

Although, as you say, this probably isn't the thread for such a discussion.

 

[Sayros]

I think Raheem Sterling's done an excellent job to put front and center some of the issue black players deal with when it comes to their representation in the media. It's a fairly consistent thing that a black player will be called 'strong' & 'athletic' while the white player will be 'intelligent' or 'crafty'. This is something I see repeated in the medias across the world, whether it's Europe or the USA, it's a fairly consistent example of subvert racism.

The problem is, it's tricky to really know for certain whether someone is using racism or simply being an opiniated fan on here. Sometimes I cringe at the amount of times I see Pogba being called lazy, unprofessional, or a diva, when anybody who knows even a little bit about him would know he's not any of those things and never has been, it doesn't mean he hasn't had bad games but there's a big difference between the two characterizations.

I think societal changes suffer from a rubber-band effect. We went from a time where almost anything said was acceptable to now almost anything we say is under scrutiny and we look for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc any and everywhere. Sometime down the line, the rubber-band will settle in the middle but we're not quite there yet.

 

[JSArsenal]

Great point, especially the Italian-American example.
African Americans are just as, if not more 'American' by way of family heritage dating back centuries. However they are always differentiated by their skin colour.

I just think the very name African-American is a constant reminder of slavery. No one is ever referred to as a European-American even when they're trying to talk about their multicultural heritage. Yet the phrase African-American is constantly used despite Africa not being a country. Most black people who were born in the West can't trace their roots (a deliberate tactic of slavery to erase the customs and heritage of the slaves) and don't have the honour of knowing if they're Angolan-American or what have you. Instead, they're classified as an other, whereas most European immigrants have the pleasure of simply being Americans while simultaneously getting to boast of their multiculturalism when it suits them.

Its just a small bit of racism to me, much like how black footballers are talked about. A black footballer will likely only be compared to another black footballer regardless of whether their styles of play are similar. Diaby was compared to Vieira despite being a completely different footballer, same for Lukaku and Drogba. People see skin colour and size and its the only similarities that they think they need.

 

[Jippy]

I just think the very name African-American is a constant reminder of slavery. No one is ever referred to as a European-American even when they're trying to talk about their multicultural heritage. Yet the phrase African-American is constantly used despite Africa not being a country. Most black people who were born in the West can't trace their roots (a deliberate tactic of slavery to erase the customs and heritage of the slaves) and don't have the honour of knowing if they're Angolan-American or what have you. Instead, they're classified as an other, whereas most European immigrants have the pleasure of simply being Americans while simultaneously getting to boast of their multiculturalism when it suits them.

Its just a small bit of racism to me, much like how black footballers are talked about. A black footballer will likely only be compared to another black footballer regardless of whether their styles of play are similar. Diaby was compared to Vieira despite being a completely different footballer, same for Lukaku and Drogba. People see skin colour and size and its the only similarities that they think they need.

There is obviously an element of that with the Drogba reference being the obvious example. Not sure it's egregious all of the time, more a lazy comparison, eg any combative new Serbian centre back will be the new Vidic, a small Argentinian dribbler the new Messi etc...

 

[Trizy]

Havent seen the post, and dont know the context. What I do know is that historicly ape. monkey, gorilla has been used as a means of referring to black people as sub human. The history of it is well known. So while Im sure the person posting the comment in no way was commenting on skin colour, but rather performance, its a terrible analogy to use when commenting on a black person in any context. That being said, if it was used in the context of performance I would simply educate and move on. No need to shame people over things they didnt mean.

Agreed.

(also haven't seen the post / context).

 

[Kinsella]

I just think the very name African-American is a constant reminder of slavery. No one is ever referred to as a European-American even when they're trying to talk about their multicultural heritage. Yet the phrase African-American is constantly used despite Africa not being a country. Most black people who were born in the West can't trace their roots (a deliberate tactic of slavery to erase the customs and heritage of the slaves) and don't have the honour of knowing if they're Angolan-American or what have you. Instead, they're classified as an other, whereas most European immigrants have the pleasure of simply being Americans while simultaneously getting to boast of their multiculturalism when it suits them.

Good point.

The horror of having your history/identity taking from you is a mighty cross to bear. It's part of what made the Muhammad Ali story so inspiring.

 

[villain]

I doubt you'll be able to answer the question but how common is that view?

I don't know the ethnicity of Barca84 or Cassidy for example, but when white people (or, to be specific, some white people) use the term, I get the impression that self-congratulation is a motivating factor for doing so. It's almost like a display of moral virtuousness, with an emphasis on the word display.

There's definitely some who don't like it - for example there are black people who explicitly prefer being referred to as black (i'd assume that would also exist for other races), and there are some who see it as belittling because not all PoC are allies, so being grouped together can defeat the purpose.
It would be really hard, and probably unnecessary to gauge the broad spectrum of opinions on the word I would say.

However I don't take issue with white people who have educated themselves on issues that affect PoC including referring to the correct pronouns, and I certainly wouldn't see it as mortal virtuousness - I think that's the wrong attitude to take by a long stretch.
Sure - white knighting is real and can be patronising, but it's largely harmless unless done with the intention of erasure of the presence of PoC, and from what I find, those who are in danger of 'moral virtuousness'/white knighting are more open to learning and broadening their perspective on issues of race - which is a much more welcome perspective.

 

[JSArsenal]

There is obviously an element of that with the Drogba reference being the obvious example. Not sure it's egregious all of the time, more a lazy comparison, eg any combative new Serbian centre back will be the new Vidic, a small Argentinian dribbler the new Messi etc...

I somewhat agree but at the same time, look at the examples you used. Those players are connected by their nationality and a surface level understanding of the new player's playing style. However, I find that black players are almost never compared to their white counterparts. If you're tall and black and play in midfield, you're more than likely going to draw Vieira/Makelele/Yaya Toure comparisons. There isn't a pundit in football that is going to call Maitland-Niles the new Emmanuel Petit for instance. You even saw it a bit with Pogba in the past when he was chastised at times for his lack of defensive nous or responsibility. That's because when people look at Pogba they expect him to dominate the midfield using his "size and physicality" when in my opinion his play style resembles a Zidane more than a Vieira.

 

[2 man midfield]

It's hard to imagine a player complaining about fans singing about his 'huge penis'.

Yeah maybe to me or you but it seemed pretty obvious he himself wasn’t keen on the idea, he basically politely asked the fans not to do it. Plus even if you ignore the historical aspect of it, none of the fans have ever seen his knob so assuming he’s got a biggun purely because of his skin colour is racist in the most basic sense.

No one at any point called him the shit Lukaku is called weekly. Not at any point. Even after his more profligate games.

I don’t remember the specifics of things that far back but I remember Zlatan getting a lot of stick. He was never called a donkey or anything as far as I know, but it’s Zlatan Ibrahimovich, it’s obvious he isn’t one. Lukaku? The jury is very much out, and that’s being kind.

I still stand by the fact that he got slated for missing chances though, which is exactly what Lukaku is getting.

 

[crossy1686]

You'll get it when you see their performances on the pitch.

There are hundreds of variables that could contribute towards poor performance on the pitch. To simply say that someone who performs poorly has poor football intelligence is lazy. I doubt you'll find anyone with poor intelligence at the top level, search the lower leagues and it might be more common.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Yeah maybe to me or you but it seemed pretty obvious he himself wasn’t keen on the idea, he basically politely asked the fans not to do it. Plus even if you ignore the historical aspect of it, none of the fans have ever seen his knob so assuming he’s got a biggun purely because of his skin colour is racist in the most basic sense.

Maybe they assumed it because of his of his overall size? Big man, big penis.

 

[2 man midfield]

Maybe they assumed it because of his of his overall size? Big man, big penis.

I don’t think there’s any link as far as I know. You could be 6’5 and still have a chipolata.

Not that I’ve done any extensive research, mind.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Yeah maybe to me or you but it seemed pretty obvious he himself wasn’t keen on the idea, he basically politely asked the fans not to do it. Plus even if you ignore the historical aspect of it, none of the fans have ever seen his knob so assuming he’s got a biggun purely because of his skin colour is racist in the most basic sense.



I don’t remember the specifics of things that far back but I remember Zlatan getting a lot of stick. He was never called a donkey or anything as far as I know, but it’s Zlatan Ibrahimovich, it’s obvious he isn’t one. Lukaku? The jury is very much out, and that’s being kind.

I still stand by the fact that he got slated for missing chances though, which is exactly what Lukaku is getting.

There is being slated for missing chances then being plain over the top abused and the difference between the two is huge. I never understand people's need whilst being critical to go over the top in general. But in Lukaku's case it often borders on the ridiculous.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I don’t think there’s any link as far as I know. You could be 6’5 and still have a chipolata.

Not that I’ve done any extensive research, mind.

I thought it was related to foot size or the distance between your wrist and elbow or thumb and pinky finger or something?

Alls I know if they stopped singing about it and his form dropped. Ergo, we should sing songs about all of our player's massive cocks.

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

There are hundreds of variables that could contribute towards poor performance on the pitch. To simply say that someone who performs poorly has poor football intelligence is lazy. I doubt you'll find anyone with poor intelligence at the top level, search the lower leagues and it might be more common.

There are some players who clearly have low football intelligence, relative to the level they play at.

Look at Adama Traore. He makes the wrong decisions the majority of the time. He's the most frustrating player to watch in the league because whilst he is clearly talented on the ball and a great athlete, he's lacking in the mental side of the game. Every game I've watched him in he does something you can't understand, he will look bright and threatening but totally fail when it comes to that final decision.

People can call that a racial stereotype if they like. I also think that Didier Drogba is one of the most intelligent footballers in recent PL history though. He held up the ball superbly, knew exactly when to win a free kick or buy time for his team when they were under pressure.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Ergo, we should sing songs about all of our player's massive cocks.

Mata's Big Chorizo
Romelu's Anaconda
Paul Pogba's Python
McTominay's Shepherd's Staff
Lingard's got a Long One
Marcus' Massive Manhood
Tony's Terrific Todger
etc.

 

[2 man midfield]

There is being slated for missing chances then being plain over the top abused and the difference between the two is huge. I never understand people's need whilst being critical to go over the top in general. But in Lukaku's case it often borders on the ridiculous.

You could say that about a lot of things posted on here, people go over the top all the time. When your football club spends over a billion and is still languishing in 7th place as it was 5 years ago, tensions are high and stuff gets said in the heat of the moment. Lukaku is in the eyes of many posters not good enough for Manchester United. That’s in more aspects than just his conversion rate. That’s his touch, his link up play, his work off the ball etc. To many his lack of quality is one of the reasons we’re not cutting it right now.

When Zlatan was here, there was no questioning his quality. He was more than good enough to play for us, and excelled in all the above criteria except maybe work off the ball. But are you going to target Zlatan as much for being lazy when he’s obviously good enough for the club, and is obviously not the problem? Probably not. People target Lukaku because they think he’s emblematic of where the club is right now - i.e not good enough.

 

[Man of Leisure]

When you think of stuff like this, you have to consider the way the term arose in the first place. Somewhere between slavery and here, people decided that using the N-word in public life to refer to a black person wasn't politically correct. Then the word negro came into fashion, followed by "person of colour", "African-American" and "black person". So when you look at how minorities were referred to in the past, people regard "person of colour" as an "improvement".

I have much the same problem with the term "African-American". Most black people in America have family roots there dating back centuries for obvious reasons, yet the grandson/son of Italian immigrants isn't referred to as an Italian-American, but simply an American.

What is the difference between the two? Why not simply refer to all citizens born there as Americans.

This probably isn't the thread for that discussion though.

You've gotta switch around "African-American" and "black" if you're going by order of when those terms came into prominence. "African-American" is a more recent term than "black" is here in America. As for your analogy to Italian-Americans, guess I'm not understanding your point. The term "African-American" isn't to distinguish between ethnicity (like Italian-American), but rather between race (white and black) so it shouldn't be compared as such. If your point is that blacks shouldn't be referred to as African-American at all, as there's no term such as Caucasian-American, then that's something else entirely. Although here in America, terms like Asian-American and Hispanic-American or Latino-American are quite common as well.

 

[2 man midfield]

I thought it was related to foot size or the distance between your wrist and elbow or thumb and pinky finger or something?

Alls I know if they stopped singing about it and his form dropped. Ergo, we should sing songs about all of our player's massive cocks.

I actually don’t know, you might well be right.

We could try it but Jose would probably come out in the post match presser and tell everyone his is bigger.