Racism incident in PSG v Istanbul match

[Markey]

I would attempt to describe the others first, focusing on descriptors like attire, hair color, positive height (tall, not short). Then gender. Wouldn’t state race unless absolutely necessary, then only to the boss & no one else. Wouldn’t let someone overhear.

But, using attire, hair color, positive height, & gender will allow you to be accurately descriptive of three different people every time. There isn’t a situation where you would have to use a racial descriptor in such a closed environment. It’s simply unprofessional to use one in such a fluid environment like a sporting event where an inappropriate word could be so easily misconstrued.

This just shows what a difficult subject racism is.

Like you, I would never use a negative to describe someone or identify them. Fat/obese for example. But, having worked in black communities in youth clubs etc, being black is not a negative. It is something to be proud of and celebrated. And that is how I truly feel about it (I am white just for context) and how it was talked about with the young people we worked with. So no, I personally would not see anything wrong in identifying someone as a black person, in the right context. It wouldn't be my first choice necessarily but it wouldn't be a descriptor I would actively avoid. That to me makes it seem like a negative that should not be pointed out or spoken of.

However, in this incident, UEFA should be educating their officials who work on an international stage with a vast range of countries and cultures all watching. If they have not put their officials through some sort of education about how the spanish word for black is very similar to a racial slur that is very offensive in many countries, and so should not be used under any circumstances, then is it UEFA that are at fault. If they have, then the official only has himself to blame.

There may not have been any malice or intent behind it but it was very naive.

 

[Sparky Rhiwabon]

If he had to use descriptors to identify which player he meant, he could have said something like “this tall muscular guy with very short dark hair and brown eyes”

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Why?

Why does it matter why he's upset? Do we have to judge the man on whether he's allowed to be upset because someone referred to him solely based on the colour of his skin? Is it something he's just not allowed to be upset by?

It doesn't dilute any fight against Racism... if a man is upset against because someone identified him by his skin colour, who are you, me or anyone to say whether thats allowed?

If someone referred to me as the brown one at work, I'd be pretty annoyed... would I have to explain myself? Or should I just not be allowed to be annoyed?

 

[Berbasbullet]

Not read through this yet, but assume @sammsky1 is in here banning words again? Or at least I hope so!

 

[JPRouve]

Or understood him if he heard him. It’s quite possible he thought nobody but the ref would know what he was saying. Romanian being a language not spoken much (or at all?) outside Romania.

Interestingly Romanian is supposed to be close to french.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Interestingly Romanian is supposed to be close to french.

That is interesting. Not many other languages are (other than general latin similarities) Have you ever seen it written down? Would it make sense to you?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Why does it matter why he's upset? Do we have to judge the man on whether he's allowed to be upset because someone referred to him solely based on the colour of his skin? Is it something he's just not allowed to be upset by?

It doesn't dilute any fight against Racism... if a man is upset against because someone identified him by his skin colour, who are you, me or anyone to say whether thats allowed?

If someone referred to me as the brown one at work, I'd be pretty annoyed... would I have to explain myself? Or should I just not be allowed to be annoyed?

Do you think it’s possible that the Istanbul bloke should be allowed to feel hurt and annoyed, while the fourth official is also allowed to feel aggrieved that using (what he thought was) an innocent descriptor has ended up with him being accused of being a racist? (in front of the whole word)

To me, this whole thing hangs on the linguistic quirk where the Romanian word for black sounds very similar to much more offensive words. Then emotions got high(er) and nobody would back down.

At the end of the day, match officials act like police men. And when police describe suspects to each other, race is always going to feature in the description. So when you need to single out one man from a bunch of men wearing masks and identical outfits, in a hurry, I don’t see how that’s possible without mentioning the colour of their skin.

(and yes, I know police are often racist, that’s a discussion for another thread)

 

[GameOn]

I don't think the question is whether he could have. He clearly could. But why didn't he.

Because it was in the heat of the moment and identifying a black man in a predominantly white group (Istanbul's coaching staff) by calling him "the black man" is the fastest and easiest way to go.

Would be the same, if it was the other way around.

It's also quite irritating to see that the 4th official, who had no ill intentions and simply spoke his native language, is now the villain, while everyone forgets that this member of Istanbul's coaching staff actually insulted others, which is why he got booked in the first place.

 

[kouroux]

Come to a country with mostly black people. Its the only thing you will be referred as.


Edit.... Well I can't speak for all black majority countries but it happens everyday where I live. "give this to the white man"

"yow white boy, your order is ready"


"excuse me sir, the white lady over there is calling you"

You're absolutely right, it's frequent and I see it everyday here where I live.

 

[JPRouve]

That is interesting. Not many other languages are (other than general latin similarities) Have you ever seen it written down? Would it make sense to you?

I wouldn't say that it makes sense but it sounds and looks familiar.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Do you think it’s possible that the Istanbul bloke should be allowed to feel hurt and annoyed, while the fourth official is also allowed to feel aggrieved that using (what he thought was) an innocent descriptor has ended up with him being accused of being a racist? (in front of the whole word)

To me, this whole thing hangs on the linguistic quirk where the Romanian word for black sounds very similar to much more offensive words. Then emotions got high(er) and nobody would back down.

At the end of the day, match officials act like police men. And when police describe suspects to each other, race is always going to feature in the description. So when you need to single out one man from a bunch of men wearing masks and identical outfits, in a hurry, I don’t see how that’s possible without mentioning the colour of their skin.

(and yes, I know police are often racist, that’s a discussion for another thread)

Absolutely.

The fourth official can certainly feel like he said an innocent thing and like the whole thing is a misunderstanding - however I would still hope he could also understand how his choice of words could upset someone and be sorry about it (as anyone would be when they say anything that upsets another person - even if they had zero intention to upset that person)

 

[Smores]

I find these threads so weird. I can only assume some of the posters are wilfully pretending not to understand the problem here or they've such a narrow definition of racism that only behaviour of the KKK is considered racism.

That distinction isn't made with other forms of discrimination, people get that you don't have to be a sexist or against the disabled to use offending language. Why with racial matters then is their a qualifier of assessing if the behaviour is enough to classify the offender as a racist? If not they're excused.

 

[Gabagoo]

In my opinion...

So referring to skin colour is fine for Black Lives Matter but not for identifying someone? So the slogan should be All Liv-- wait.

If we strip away all of the extraneous argument points like "the officials should know all names and numbers" (no they shouldn't) then we basically get down to this question: If the task is for Person A to identify, to Person B, a certain individual in a group whose name is not known to Person A, given that this is done in real time and must be carried out quickly, is it ethically fine for Person A to use the individual's skin colour as a form of identification?

I'll answer it for you: yes, because it's an easily distinguishable feature.

If I was pointing at a poster of Ricky Gervais and Chris Rock and trying to identify Gervais, I'd say "the white dude".

Conversely, if I was pointing at a poster of Ricky Gervais, Steven Merchant and Karl Pilkington and trying to identify Merchant, I'd just say "the tall one" because Merchant's height in the most distinguishable feature.

I'd actually suggest that if we don't use skin colour, then let's not use height, weight, hair, etc.
"Which one do you mean?"
"The one with sad eyes that might yet find love in this cruel world"

Why are we so afraid of using skin colour to identify strangers? Is skin colour something of which to be scared? That seems racist to me.

-----

Now, if I start referring to my dear friend of mine by neither his name, an affectionate nickname or a redeeming feature of his, but as "the black guy" then shame on me for prioritising race over other, more important qualities whose knowledge of which I'm already in possession.

-----

Racism is disgusting and needs to be aggressively highlighted and destroyed. But issues like this actually dilute and trivialise the real issues which we need to focus on.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Absolutely.

The fourth official can certainly feel like he said an innocent thing and like the whole thing is a misunderstanding - however I would still hope he could also understand how his choice of words could upset someone and be sorry about it (as anyone would be when they say anything that upsets another person - even if they had zero intention to upset that person)

Sure. And I imagine he does feel sorry. He definitely regrets his choice of words!

I just find it strange to see so many people absolutely convinced he definitely did something bad/racist. Sometimes it’s possible to accidentally cause offence, despite doing nothing wrong. Like I said, given the context what he did was entirely understandable and doesn’t have to be perceived as racist.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I find these threads so weird. I can only assume some of the posters are wilfully pretending not to understand the problem here or they've such a narrow definition of racism that only behaviour of the KKK is considered racism.

That distinction isn't made with other forms of discrimination, people get that you don't have to be a sexist or against the disabled to use offending language. Why with racial matters then is their a qualifier of assessing if the behaviour is enough to classify the offender as a racist? If not they're excused.

The language he used wasn’t offensive. It can be used in an offensive manner and that’s where the disagreements are in this thread. Did he use a non-offensive word in a manner that would be perceived as offensive/racist?

 

[Posh Red]

The language he used wasn’t offensive. It can be used in an offensive manner and that’s where the disagreements are in this thread. Did he use a non-offensive word in a manner that would be perceived as offensive/racist?

I doubt he was being nasty, but surely you can concede that it’s an inappropriate choice of words in a champions league game as a professional/official? I said it earlier, but I would be shocked if there was no training at all on this from UEFA

 

[RobinLFC]

I doubt he was being nasty, but surely you can concede that it’s an inappropriate choice of words in a champions league game as a professional/official? I said it earlier, but I would be shocked if there was no training at all on this from UEFA

I wouldn't give them too much credit for the racism fight, if anything I'd be shocked if they had training on this tbh. Their slogans are nothing but hollow and usually aren't backed up by their actions apart from a fine and a game behind closed doors here and there.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I doubt he was being nasty, but surely you can concede that it’s an inappropriate choice of words in a champions league game as a professional/official? I said it earlier, but I would be shocked if there was no training at all on this from UEFA

I guess it varies from country to country but “black” is a perfectly acceptable word to use as a descriptor in lots of countries. Provided there is a reasonable context for using it. Obviously, using it unnecessarily is a dick move. African-American only gets used in America (and always seemed a weird one to me, as though being black means you’re automatically American!) so what other words could he have used?

Or do we seriously think he should have gone through the mental gymnastics to find a way to quickly describe a black man on a bench full of white men, wearing face masks and matching tracksuits, without mentioning his race. How does he even do that? The tall man? The man with the kind eyes?

 

[Adisa]

Are people in this thread trying to tell me the 4th official doesn't know who Demba Ba is?
Read the first ten pages of this thread. Need some bleach.

 

[Smores]

The language he used wasn’t offensive. It can be used in an offensive manner and that’s where the disagreements are in this thread. Did he use a non-offensive word in a manner that would be perceived as offensive/racist?

The language he used (not words but phrasing) was offensive to someone, that's all that matters. Should UEFA officials understand that language is offensive to some? Obviously.

Uefa need to take stock apologise and then ensure that all officials are adequately trained.

 

[Cultured left ankle]

I find these threads so weird. I can only assume some of the posters are wilfully pretending not to understand the problem here or they've such a narrow definition of racism that only behaviour of the KKK is considered racism.

That distinction isn't made with other forms of discrimination, people get that you don't have to be a sexist or against the disabled to use offending language. Why with racial matters then is their a qualifier of assessing if the behaviour is enough to classify the offender as a racist? If not they're excused.

Right. There were similar points made during the Millwall thread.

People also are focusing only on this incident, like Ba and Webo are getting in a huff because an official may or may not have used a word they deemed offensive.

This incident happens in a context. Consider that they have likely faced racism on so many fronts - fans, other players, etc. Tiny fines and pitiful reactions to racism had probably given them little confidence in governing bodies. And then someone representing these bodies makes an unfortunate remark. Maybe they would agree with those saying the taking the knee isn't enough and is an empty gesture. Maybe this was the last incedent they could take.

Even if this was an overreaction and is based on a cultural misunderstanding, there's been talk of walk-offs for ages with no one following through. Fair play to both teams for taking a stand and supporting each other. Fair play to all players for saying 'we will not take any more abuse', even if it is unintentionally racist - perhaps even especially then.

Hopefully, the official in question won't have his life ruined, but will take this as a learning opportunity. People make mistakes, and should be allowed to grow from them. Hopefully, this can lead to a broader analysis of making football more inclusive and welcoming. Hopefully, this won't be swept under the carpet and results in a guy losing his job as a scapegoat, with no one learning and no real changes.

But I have a suspicion we all know what will happen.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Are people in this thread trying to tell me the 4th official doesn't know who Demba Ba is?
Read the first ten pages of this thread. Need some bleach.

It wasn’t Demba Ba who he was trying to identify.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

That is interesting. Not many other languages are (other than general latin similarities) Have you ever seen it written down? Would it make sense to you?

Closest language to Romanian is Italian and they have a degree of mutual intelligibility though it's generally easier for Romanians to understand Italian than the other way round as Romanian has a lot of Slavic words that Italians don't know. Next closest language (if we ignored regional languages and dialects) would probably indeed be French. Romanian is also the modern language closest to Vulgar Latin.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Sure. And I imagine he does feel sorry. He definitely regrets his choice of words!

I just find it strange to see so many people absolutely convinced he definitely did something bad/racist. Sometimes it’s possible to accidentally cause offence, despite doing nothing wrong. Like I said, given the context what he did was entirely understandable and doesn’t have to be perceived as racist.

this is what makes things really difficult.

we have racism in society. Fact.

we also have people who are willing to jump to instant conclusions about incidents, and label them racist, when then don’t even know the context/ cultural differences. I’m not defending anyone, and unlike some I’m not suddenly an expert in Romanian language.

look at some of the reactions to the Cavani Instagram post.

I don’t think this instant outcry from bystanders who didn’t witness the incident without really knowing the facts is helping.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Closest language to Romanian is Italian and they have a degree of mutual intelligibility though it's generally easier for Romanians to understand Italian than the other way round as Romanian has a lot of Slavic words that Italians don't know. Next closest language (if we ignored regional languages and dialects) would probably indeed be French. Romanian is also the modern language closest to Vulgar Latin.

I had no idea Romanian was so similar to Latin. Gotta love the caf. Come for the football. Stay for the linguistics lessons.

 

[GameOn]

All in all this probably is just one huge misunderstanding, just like the Cavani incident.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

I had no idea Romanian was so similar to Latin. Gotta love the caf. Come for the football. Stay for the linguistics lessons.

If you want to go down that rabbit hole:



Back to topic.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

The language he used (not words but phrasing) was offensive to someone, that's all that matters. Should UEFA officials understand that language is offensive to some? Obviously.

Uefa need to take stock apologise and then ensure that all officials are adequately trained.

I disagree with your statement around offence. It cannot be the fact that because someone is offended by what you say, it’s wrong.

if you are offended by something I say, thats not my problem.

If however, I’ve said something that is racist, then that’s an issue, and that should be dealt with.

It may be semantics, but in life we can’t tiptoe around for fear of offending someone.

 

[Botim]

This Romanian ref tried to kill himself ten years ago, by the way (had to be plucked from a rooftop)

So I really hope he's not harrassed into doing something drastic.

 

[RashyForPM]

Are people in this thread trying to tell me the 4th official doesn't know who Demba Ba is?
Read the first ten pages of this thread. Need some bleach.

You shouldn’t have mate. It’s so irritating reading people trying to defend the ref by coming up with any lame excuse under the sun. The Millwall thread too. People genuinely defending the boo boys. Those people are either racist or simply uneducated.

 

[Inigo Montoya]

Interestingly Romanian is supposed to be close to french.

Yes it’s part of the group

 

[Inigo Montoya]

The language he used (not words but phrasing) was offensive to someone, that's all that matters. Should UEFA officials understand that language is offensive to some? Obviously.

Uefa need to take stock apologise and then ensure that all officials are adequately trained.

There’s a lot of common sense in that post. Sadly we live in times of hysterical overreaction or blind defence of the unacceptable

 

[Arruda]

I wouldn't say that it makes sense but it sounds and looks familiar.

It's among the five latin languages, and closer to it than french. I understand nothing of it (unlike Spanish, Italian and French, which I understand a bit by decreasing order) too but the sounds are amazing. Closest to Italian than French in style I'd say.

 

[Poborsky's hair]

Are people in this thread trying to tell me the 4th official doesn't know who Demba Ba is?
Read the first ten pages of this thread. Need some bleach.

Wasn´t Demba Ba mate, he was reffering to the coach from Cameroon who is of African descent, correct me if I´m wrong. Now being the only guy of black skin on the bench calling him the black guy (negru in Romanian) doesn´t make him a racist. Imagine there is a Caucasian guy on the bench in a African league and he´s about to recieve the card because of some misconduct. You would definitely call him a white guy, noone knows where that guy´s from, you are not using the terms like Caucasian, or African, please... and you´re simply using denomination of colour and trust me or not calling black a black or white a white, red a red is not racism. Because you know in Romanian as in a Romanian language, negru is simply a colour. Simply a language barier will made fuss about this.

All of these offended by this should really apologize to the fourth official. What the feck is going on with this world, you can´t speak in your own language? what a shitty hypercorrective world we live in.

Now I am going by what was allegedly said and that he didn´t say the "n word" meaning N*gger. Anybody watch Southpark?

 

[Markey]

I disagree with your statement around offence. It cannot be the fact that because someone is offended by what you say, it’s wrong.

if you are offended by something I say, thats not my problem.

If however, I’ve said something that is racist, then that’s an issue, and that should be dealt with.

It may be semantics, but in life we can’t tiptoe around for fear of offending someone.

If you used a word, in an international, diverse and multiracial setting, that is very closely related in both sound and meaning to a racial slur that is highly offensive, then yes, it would be your problem.

With it being such a hot subject, it baffles me that UEFA have not at the very least briefed their employees about the language they use and words that can be misinterpreted and should be avoided, assuming they haven't.

 

[slored1]

This Romanian ref tried to kill himself ten years ago, by the way (had to be plucked from a rooftop)

So I really hope he's not harrassed into doing something drastic.

Yep, would be a bit much. I reckon if he tried to explain it clearly yesterday and apologised for the misinterpretation it would all be fine.

 

[Smores]

I disagree with your statement around offence. It cannot be the fact that because someone is offended by what you say, it’s wrong.

if you are offended by something I say, thats not my problem.

If however, I’ve said something that is racist, then that’s an issue, and that should be dealt with.

It may be semantics, but in life we can’t tiptoe around for fear of offending someone.

Are you saying it's unreasonable for someone to not want to be called out because of the colour of their skin?

Unless the answer to that is yes then i don't get your point. It seems like you're doing exactly what i said above, defining whether someone can be offended by matters around their race based on a qualifier of whether the behaviour is full blown racist or not (something which of course changes). There's offence around race beyond purely racist terms but everyone leaps to this "I'm not racist" defence.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Are you saying it's unreasonable for someone to not want to be called out because of the colour of their skin?

Unless the answer to that is yes then i don't get your point. It seems like you're doing exactly what i said above, defining whether someone can be offended by matters around their race based on a qualifier of whether the behaviour is full blown racist or not (something which of course changes). There's offensive around race beyond purely racist terms.

no I’m not. That should be clear. I’m saying, your definition “If someone is offended” doesn’t stand up - and doesn’t stand up in terms of race, or for any language that’s used.

just because someone is offended, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I’m pulling you up on that, not what happened last night.

don’t take that to mean the incident yesterday wasn’t racist.

 

[Smores]

no I’m not. That should be clear. I’m saying, your definition “If someone is offended” doesn’t stand up - and doesn’t stand up in terms of race, or for any language that’s used.

just because someone is offended, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I’m pulling you up on that, not what happened last night.

don’t take that to mean the incident yesterday wasn’t racist.

Honestly i still don't get what you mean by wrong. It's obviously wrong to the offended so i think you're trying to say just because someone is offended you shouldn't face consequences?

Agreed but that's not the end of the matter, consequences or not you'd take stock of whether you want to cause offence in the future and if it's right you define what's offensive. That's what i meant by it's all that matters.

Whether it's racist, intolerant, inappropriate whatever term the key thing is UEFA listen and respond so unnecessary offence isn't caused.

 

[Adam McNeill]

I would like to tell you about a little story from me being a kid in primary school (keeping in mind I am 38 now), that relates to this one:

I must have been about 7, one day in primary school a group of kids stole our football and wouldn't give it back (in adult hindsight they probably just wanted to join in as they didn't have a ball!!!).

I went to a teacher in the playground (who happened to be the deputy head teacher) and told him that our ball had been stolen and they wouldn't give it back.

He was asking me to identify the group and I was pointing at them and he kept asking me who several times, pointing wasn't enough to identify the group.

So eventually I run out patience and said "its the group of black kids that have the ball".

He gave me the biggest bollocking you have ever seen, out right shouting in my face in the playground.

The day after there was a morning assembly and I was made to go to the front of the assembly in front of the whole school, he gave a whole speech about racism and how what I said wasn't acceptable (keeping in mind this was 30 years ago!) and I never called a black person black again, rightly or wrongly that's what I was taught.

The real problem here in 2020 is that people don't know/understand what is classed as racism.

The rules of being acceptable in society are so blurred now that its difficult to keep track of what's classed as right or wrong, can you say a black person is black or is that racist, what do you call a transgender male or female... is it sexist to classify them as a gender? How about gender neutrals what would you call them should you need to identify somebody in a crowd?

I like to believe the official didn't mean to cause any upset or wasn't being intentionally racist, however just like a 7 year old me, he caused distress to somebody and needs to be told what is acceptable. Personally, from my own experience I would have walked over and pointed a finger directly at him.

This is impossible but if the rules were clear for everyone (in any language) "It's now illegal/unacceptable to class ANYBODY as ANYTHING" you wouldn't have these issues anymore, it would be clear for everyone on that planet what is acceptable.

It's almost ridiculous though, how do you distinguish you from me? How would you describe a thief to the police without upsetting "somebody"?