Whiteface

You can't find anyone asking any of the Senegal team, where they are from?

Did you honestly say that?
shows how weak your arguments are when you need to remove content from a post to then show it out of context. Pathetic
 
I'm suggesting something different, which is that white racism is still sadly so powerful (and so invisible in many ways), that to suggest that white people are victims of anti-white racism is frankly (a) a little silly and (b) ignores the practical current reality of the dreadful and ongoing impact of white racism on people of colour.
One example I can think of where white people feel targeted because of their skin colour and genealogy is the white farmers in South Africa and land reform. However some might say it's simply redressing the balance (see below in italics).

Whether people see their pov or not, I think a lot of the existing anger and frustration felt by some ethnic groups (whether under the surface or front and centre) comes from how previous generations were treated. I think it oversimplifies matters to say 'people need to move on.' Whilst there's undoubtedly some truth in that, it's often not that straightforward.

Scenario. Imagine you live on a housing estate. There are 500 houses. 490 of them are small, terraced, not very well constructed houses. Your family lives in one of them. The other 10 houses are large, detached, well built and in a gated section of the estate. They are all owned and lived in by the Blogg family. The 490 house holders pay rent to the Blogg's. You find out that, 100 years ago, your family owned all the land the housing estate sits on. However the Bloggs carried out an underhand process to 'buy' the land from your family a century ago, and they've profited from it ever since. It's widely accepted that, whilst your family might not have a case that can be answered in court, the Bloggs deal of 1920 was at best underhand and more likely illegal.

When armed with that sort of information, it might not be that easy for your family to simply 'move on' and forget the whole thing. Anyways here's the stuff I referenced earlier ...

The dispossession of land through the 1913 Natives Land Act was apartheid’s original sin. The “land question” goes back more than a century to the 1913 Natives Land Act, which provided legislative form to a process of dispossession that had been under way since colonial times.

The 1913 Natives Land Act saw thousands of black families forcibly removed from their land by the apartheid government. The Act became law on 19 June 1913 limiting African land ownership to 7 percent and later 13 percent through the 1936 Native Trust and Land Act of South Africa. The Act restricted black people from buying or occupying land. The apartheid government began the mass relocation of black people to poor homelands and to poorly planned and serviced townships. No longer able to provide for themselves and their families, people were forced to look for work far away from their homes. This marked the beginning of socio-economic challenges the country is facing today such as landlessness, poverty and inequality. The Land Act was finally repealed when the Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act, 1991 (Act No. 108 of 1991) came into force on 30 June 1991.
 
shows how weak your arguments are when you need to remove content from a post to then show it out of context. Pathetic
Your post in its entirety:
1670237296100.png


I removed my quoted post, and your posted Youtube clip, nothing more.
What else could your second sentence possibly be referring to?
 
Irrelevant really. Whether it's to wi' us, or not doesn't come into it, We're discussing an academic subject.
I suspect the reluctance of Senegal's white population to participate in football is nothing to do with their heritage, excluding any family's wealth, status, etc.

I don't suppose that Senegal's selectors are racist. It's just a silly and false allegation by Munroast.
It raises a point about diversity in African countries, who're quick to point out the problems with racism in European nations while ignoring their own ethnic divisions...
American Football had a real problem for decades and persisted into the 80s with a trope saying black players can't play the quarter-back position: a blatant prejudice proved false when Doug Williams stepped in to the Washington team for the '87 Superbowl and outplayed Elway's Bronco's. Since then, more black players have become great quarter-backs - given the chance, anyone can play, regardless of colour.
Football has much more diversity since Viv Anderson made his England debut in 1978 and nobody bats an eyelid when one is chosen to play.
Give it time, Sisyphus, and keep pushin' that rock up the hill. ;)
 
The 1 thing I like about this thread, is that it shows up the people looking to make racism arguments, as if it justifies racism
 
It raises a point about diversity in African countries, who're quick to point out the problems with racism in European nations while ignoring their own ethnic divisions...
American Football had a real problem for decades and persisted into the 80s with a trope saying black players can't play the quarter-back position: a blatant prejudice proved false when Doug Williams stepped in to the Washington team for the '87 Superbowl and outplayed Elway's Bronco's. Since then, more black players have become great quarter-backs - given the chance, anyone can play, regardless of colour.
Football has much more diversity since Viv Anderson made his England debut in 1978 and nobody bats an eyelid when one is chosen to play.
Give it time, Sisyphus, and keep pushin' that rock up the hill. ;)
Just been looking at the number of Senegalese footballers that play for other country's clubs. It's impressive.
There's about 18 Senegalese players playing for English clubs alone.
There's probably more than 30 playing for Spanish clubs, and probably more than 50 playing for French clubs.

This is from a country of just 16,000,000 people.

I'd suggest two things, football is very culturally followed in Senegal, and possibly football is seen as a potential road out of poverty for many players, and potential players.
 
Just been looking at the number of Senegalese footballers that play for other country's clubs. It's impressive.
There's about 18 Senegalese players playing for English clubs alone.
There's probably more than 30 playing for Spanish clubs, and probably more than 50 playing for French clubs.

This is from a country of just 16,000,000 people.
By comparison, there's about 15 English players playing for French clubs, and I suspect half of those are not ethnically 'white'. (from a country of 55,000,000)
 
So what’s with your interest in all things American then - can we govern there?
because like it or not what happens there does affect us. It also inspires our politicians (that you adore) to behave like they do.
"Don’t talk about Qatar as it’s nothing to do with us". America is though? A swerve of the highest order that some of the non-diy political pundits on here would be proud of. Well done. I applaud you.
 
Quite a few of the Senegal fans have white face makeup.
How is that not considered racist?

Even if it is. It's in Qatar, what relevance is it to here ?

Is it allowed out there then?

no idea. But we can't govern there, and nor should we

So what’s with your interest in all things American then - can we govern there?

"Don’t talk about Qatar as it’s nothing to do with us". America is though? A swerve of the highest order that some of the non-diy political pundits on here would be proud of. Well done. I applaud you.
Carmenmemoranda did not say, "it's nothing to do with us."
He/she said, "we don't govern there, what relevance is it to here?".

You never did answer his/her question, "What relevance is it to here?"
He/she did answer your question:
because like it or not what happens there does affect us. It also inspires our politicians (that you adore) to behave like they do.
 
Back
Top