FC Porto 1, AC Milan 1 (EC1 Group D, 20/11/96): in a post-match scuffle in the players's tunnel, Milan's Liberian striker George Weah broke the nose of Porto's defender Jorge Costa. Weah cited continuous racial abuse as the reason for his violent outburst. Jorge Costa maintained his innocence throughout and received no punishment. Weah received an immediate one-match ban (Milan v RBK), which was extended to six games at a later UEFA hearing. 1. Comments On The Weah-Costa Incident (Steve Jones, Doug Green) 2. Reuters Article On Racism In European Football (Gideon Long) 3. Further RSS Debate On The Weah-Costa Incident ("Snaps", "Riffster", Tejinder Sidhu) ====================================== 1. Comments On The Weah-Costa Incident ====================================== From: Steve Jones - JON
Subject: Re: Weah broke Jorge Costa nose Date: Nov 25, 1996 gaborzinho writes: > Carlos Miguel wrote: > > [ban Weah for a year] > I certainly hope so, too. This kind of garbage does not belong in > soccer. I think Milan (or any other club for that matter) should make > sure they are obtaining a quality person, not just a quality player. A > player like this would have been kicked off the team in the "old days". Ummm considering some of the "football" that was played in the "old days" I have to say this is bull, Pele was kicked out of a couple of WCs as was Pushkas (sp?). A certain Liverpool/Rangers player (now managing at Southhampton) commited several tackles that would be considered assualt or GBH if done on a street. European football of the late 70s early 80s involved punch ups and physical violence on a much larger scale than today. Argentina in the 74 world cup (?) attempted mob mentality on a ref, and the famed Italy v (ARRGHHH forgotten either Peru or Chile) game of the 50s had more high kicks than a Bruce Lee movie. Add into this a certain German keeper with his "lets kill the bloke whose trying to score" approach to preventing players scoring, Ray Wilkins for hurling the football at the Ref in Mexico etc etc etc. We notice it these days more because the game is cleaner, if you don't think so there was a documentary done on George Best and after a match they showed the colour of his legs, they were black with bruises. What Weah did was awful it deserves a ban, if Costa however had been taunting him racially all the game then he deserves an equal ban. And sort of mindless behaviour whether violence or racisim should not be tolerated but if Weah was provoked to exsess then Costa deserves equally harsh punish ment. > Is winning so important nowadays, I doubt that it should be, for the > good of the game. If I were a Baresi or a Maldini (for I think they are > class individuals as well as class players), I would go to the coach and > request that Mr. Weah be sent back to where he came from. It seems like > Brazilians no longer have the monopoly on cuddling (i.e. Edmundo) > rif-raf. Ummm of course this is a huge generalisation, Baresi has been known in his time to put players into orbit (although he learnt the new booking rules quicker than most). And as for Brazil being the worst ? What is your ranking system. What about 1) Cantona repeated stampings and then nailing a bloke in the crowd (who was put in jail for contempt of court and banned from the ground for his racist remarks... both were given just punishments). 2) Boli for head-butting Stuart Pearce during an England-France international. 3) Rijkaard for spitting on Voller and Voller for spitting back. 4) Asprillia butting Keith Curle, in which Tino got bugger all but then Curle had been kicking his legs away all game. 5) all of the ones mentioned above. Football is cleaner these days, what Weah allegedly did was bad but was it worse than deliberatly cheating to get a goal in the WC which surely is more unprofessional. So far the allegations are these 1) Weah was subject to continued racial abuse including "monkey" impressions by Costa. 2) Weah headbutted Costa. ========================================= Subject: Re: Weah broke Jorge Costa nose From: DWGreen Date: Dec 1, 1996 Riffster wrote: >I am not excusing Weah's actions -- indeed, he has himself apologized >and declared that he is not proud of his actions. That in itself does not >mean Weah should not be punished, but it does mean that Weah is normally a >very well-behaved player. > >DeSailly, Weah and Ince (amongst others) are commonly victims of racial >abuse on and off the pitch. Why did George react so violently? I don't >know -- maybe he was frustrated and angry about result and rough play. >Maybe he had fought with his wife ... I don't know. But his reaction was >a human one and like the equally (unfortunately) human action of >prejuidice alledgedly exhibited by Costa, should be punished. > >While DeSailly has not been involved in such incident, I would be willing >to bet that he would have like to done what Weah supposedly did many >times. > >I have myself heard fans in the stands of Milano and Torino scream racial >epithets at opposing players (funny how they overlook their own "minority" >players). I am not a minority but such chants infuriated me. I don't like >Milan, but I will never taunt a Milan player racially. I don't like Juve >but I will never do the same to a Juve minority (although at present I do >not believe they have such a player.) I think I recall some of this discussion overlapping with a thread from September(?) entitled "Juve is racist"... That thread brought up an ugly incident in Napoli, where the Brazilian defender Julio Cesar broke his leg quite badly. As he was laying on the field in a hell of a lot of pain, a number of class acts amongst the crowd were showering him with bottles (plastic and glass). Juve do in fact currently have "minority" players - Zinedine Zidane is of Maghrebian origins, Didier Deschamps is Basque. And there may be others, but those two are off the top of my head. Amongst Italian fans, I've been told by a few people that Verona (who are quite keen on abusing players from southern Italy, amongst others) and Napoli fans have the worst reputation. A few other related points: For a bit of context, I recall Jo Antoine Bell, former Cameroon international keeper, saying that he was taunted racially in every French city he played in (he spent most of his career there), save for 2 or 3 nothern cities (Caen and Lens are the 2 I remember in the quote), so as disgusting as it is, it is a legitimate point to note that it is pretty much endemic. I too recall the Desailly-Stoichkov incident from Euro96, and recall shaking my head in amazement at Desailly's ability to play concentrated and hard - and _very_ well vs. Stoichkov, but not react to such pathetic behaviour. I also believe I recall that there were complaints from Milan after a Serie A game last year about racist abuse of Desailly, Vieira and Weah from fans and players at Vicenza ... can anyone confirm that? My understanding of Weah in the past has been that of a conscientious, classy person. He essentially bankrolls the Liberian national team (and doesn't hesitate to twist arms at his teams to chip in with equipment - redistribution of wealth was always a concept I was cool with, n'est ce pas Silvio? :-)) and has been often involved in humanitarian efforts (inside football and out). I do however recall one incident from 2 seasons ago at Paris when Nantes won a French championship game 3-0. Luis Fernandez had his charges go out and try to physically intimidate Nantes. Daniel Bravo of PSG got sent off early and Nantes just took PSG apart (in the positive, football, sense). Late in the game, on a through ball that Weah tried to run on to, but that got to Nantes goalie Dominique Casagrande first, Weah kept running and stepped on Casagrande's hand while Casagrande was on his knees with the ball. It broke his hand (and that was partly the reason for Nantes' early exit that year from the UEFA Cup, as Nantes ended up playing Bayer Leverkusen with a 3rd string goalie; you can figure the result). Casagrande accused Weah of doing it intentionally. Weah denied this, and replays were really inconclusive - you really would have to have been inside his head. As far as the incidents at Oporto, it must be said that the referee _really_ let the game get out of hand. This week's France Football comments that Desailly (who at least two of us are holding up as a good example) should have been expelled, as should have Jorge Costa, for a foul near the end, where the ball was not being played by Weah, but Costa ran on to him from approx. 10 yards, lept into the air, and came down spikes on top of Weah's knee. The replays clearly show a shocked, scared and hurt Weah (I believe that this would have been at about 87'). The foul truly was horrid, and very much merited a sending off. This was one of many incidents during the game; so I wish to point out that the incidents in the tunnel took place in this context. There appears to be no doubt that Weah head butted Costa's nose and broke it. That he should be punished by UEFA cannot be denied, my sympathies for Weah notwithstanding. But on a personal level, Costa's proclamation that "It is true, I am a hard man, but that I stay within limits" or something like that rings quite hollow when one considers his foul (fouls?) on Weah, his proclamation "There is an assassin on the loose...", and Weah's quite positive history. On a legal level, does Costa really think he can go into court and withstand questioning about his behaviour on the field during the game in Oporto (and be asked not just about the foul, but the racial taunting - and Milan has also mentioned liberal doses of spitting) and come out of it with Weah being convicted for unprovoked, not-in-self-defense assault? I have to think that this is intended to enhance the chances of getting Milan out of the competition now. And as a last, personal note, let me ask how many of us would not have responded to what was done with something of that sort? I'm pretty certain I would have. George Weah may have some apologizing to do at the UEFA level, but personally, to me as a fan, he owes me no apology. If we're talking negative actions, who's done the worst? I vote Costa, and not by a little. ================================================= 2. Reuters Article On Racism In European Football ================================================= Subject: Racism in Football From: firstname.lastname@example.org (JWilk5) Date: Dec 13, 1996 By Gideon Long LONDON, Dec 13, 1996 (Reuter) - Racist insults have long sullied the many languages spoken on Europe's football terraces. Now, it appears, soccer players and officials are joining in. The 1996-97 season has spawned a number of high-profile incidents -- some of them ugly, some of them just plain ignorant -- in which race has played the lead role. In October, Aston Villa goalkeeper Mark Bosnich caused outrage at Tottenham when he gave a Nazi salute in front of their supporters, many of whom are from North London's Jewish community. A month later UEFA president Lennart Johansson upset a continent when he referred to Africans as ``blackies'' and described how he had felt threatened by a room full of locals on a visit to South Africa. ``When I came into the assembly hall it was full of blackies and it was getting dark when they were all sitting together,'' Johansson said in a Swedish newspaper interview. ``I thought, if this lot get in a bad mood it won't be so funny.'' Both Bosnich and Johansson apologised for their errors and insisted they were not racist. True, no doubt, but their apologies served only as damage limitation exercises. The insults had already been made. Days after Johansson's astonishing slip, the most widely respected black footballer in the world at present, AC Milan's George Weah, head-butted Jorge Costa in retaliation for the Porto captain's alleged repeated racist taunts during and after a Champions' League match. Costa strenuously denied the allegations. In England, Manchester United goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel was accused of hurling racist insults at Arsenal and England striker Ian Wright during an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation at Old Trafford. The depressing list goes on, and hardly bodes well for 1997, the European Community's ``European Year against Racism.'' Up until now, the 1990s had been seen as the decade in which European soccer started to clean up its act on the race issue. Gone were the old days of the 1970s and early 1980s when black faces were a rarity on Europe's playing fields and some stadium terraces were virtual no-go areas for non-whites. But this season's incidents suggest that racism in football is not going down without a fight. A recent survey carried out by British football magazine Four-Four-Two showed nearly two-thirds of black professional players were subjected to regular abuse from crowds. Perhaps more worryingly, 27 percent of those polled said blacks regularly suffer racist taunts from other players. And while black footballers, either from Africa or from Europe's ethnic minorities, have broken into the game at the highest level, soccer has been less successful in attracting black supporters. Almost one-quarter of players in the English league are now black but only one percent of supporters are. In Italy, where Ruud Gullit, Frank Rijkaard, Faustino Asprilla and Weah have, over the years, helped make Serie A the best league in the world, pockets of animosity towards black players remain despite the best intentions of clubs and officials. When Verona expressed an interest in signing black Dutch midfielder Michel Ferrier in April this year, a group of home supporters hoisted a black dummy with a noose around its neck from the stands. Ferrier eventually went elsewhere. Black players have long put up with that kind of abuse from the terraces, often turning it to their own advantage, but taunts from fellow professionals are harder to take. ``I can stand the public (abuse),'' Weah said after his clash with Costa. ``But I cannot justify the insult of a colleague, who also tries to hurt you.'' ``I have made a mistake and will pay for it,'' he said, urging Costa to do the same and admit his provocation. ``But national and continental federations would do well to tackle racist abuse among players.'' Internazionale's Paul Ince knows all about abuse from opponents. He was sent off in a match in October between Inter and Piacenza after Piacenza's Giampietro Piovani collapsed theatrically in the penalty area while waiting for a corner to be taken, clutching his head as if Ince had struck him. TV replays showed the England midfielder had merely tweaked the Italian's ear and when Inter later claimed Ince had been provoked by a racist taunt, Piovani acknowledged it to be true. Typically, it was Ince and not Piovani who was suspended for the incident. Weah was banned for one match for his part in the Porto flare-up. Costa, so far, has escaped with his injuries. This apparent reluctance among soccer officials to punish the provokers rather than the provoked may be due in part to the simple fact that evidence against the former is hard to come by -- a head-butt to the nose leaves blood and a broken bone, a bigoted comment or an offensive gesture makes no external marks. But with ever-greater TV coverage of European football, more racist actions and insults are being caught on camera, providing soccer's governing bodies with the hard evidence they need to crack down on provocation by players. Whether they act on that evidence is another matter. There have been successes. The ``Let's Kick Racism Out of Football'' campaign, launched in England in 1993 under the slogan ``it's the colour of your shirt that counts,'' has been lauded by the English Football Association and is being considered by UEFA as a possible model for anti- racist policy across the continent. The German Bundesliga, too, has made progress in combating abuse which led some black players to dub it the most racist league in Europe a few years ago. In the Netherlands, the phenomenal success of black players at clubs like Ajax Amsterdam has helped ease racial tensions in soccer. Two Dutch players involved in a slanging match similar to that involving Schmeichel and Wright subsequently starred in an anti-racist poster campaign under the slogan ``If racism wins, sport will lose.'' And in France, far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen was widely condemned when he claimed, during the European championship in June, that the country's black players did not know the words of the national anthem and were therefore not fully committed to their side's cause. But attitudes need to change further, as Weah points out. ``It's very hard for an African to make it in Europe,'' the Liberian reflected in an interview before the incident in Porto. ``People see a white man driving a Mercedes and assume he's a successful businessman. When they see a black man in a car like that they think he's a drug dealer.' ================================================ 3. Further RSS Debate On The Weah-Costa Incident ================================================ From: Riffster Subject: Re: Racism in Football Date: Dec 14, 1996 Schmeichel wrote: >Racism in American professional sports exists behind the scenes at the >executive and organizational level. Wrong. Racism still exists even amongst players. It is less pronounced than years ago, but it still exists. Racism is far more than yelling epithets at another player -- it clusters around team meals and cliques on the team. I challenge you to say that there isn't a strong point in the fact that blacks and whites on teams tend to gather amongst themselves. Everyone is free to associate as they please, but I see no real freedom in the fact that team after team travels in packs of blacks together and packs of whites together. There are exceptions, and there has been improvement. Has the battle for equality been won? NO. The fact that blacks and whites still are more comfortable amongst their own race is in itself a tacit admission that a gulf still lies between black and white players. Not admitting that final cultural gulf exists, is a problem that all Americans -- black and white -- had better confront soon. ====================================== From: email@example.com (Colin Morris) Subject: Re: Racism in Football Date Dec 16, 1996 [% of black players and supporters] Indeed. I guess one could reasonably expect that the perecentage of black supporters reflects the percentage of black people in the population as a whole. Off hand, I don't know what that figure is although it's probably somewhat higher than 1%. As to the original assertion that there's a huge discrepancy between black players and black supporters, that's largely silly. Whilst it's true that the absolute numbers of blacks in England makes it possible for them to physically comprise 25% of supporters, to do so would require the black population as a whole to be abnormally interested in soccer. =============================== From: Snaps@hotmail.com (Snaps) Subject: Re: Racism in Football Date: Dec 15, 1996 Riffster wrote: >I don't think this is going to change your reverse discrimination ranting, >but try reading this and then appreciate not just the Weah-Costa incident >but all racial problems in sport. If Weah wants to preach to people about racism, then neither he - or you - can complain if the logic he uses to reach these conclusions is questioned. His comments were on the shakiest ground imaginable and couldn`t be allowed to pass without a counter. Weah`s statement that white people automatically think that black people in fast cars are drug-dealers is racist by definition. He is blanketing an entire race with having opinions many/most of them do *not* have. He is no better than the people he criticizes, many would say he was worse because when Weah doesn`t get his own way the fists fly. Just as a mental excercise, try and create a photo-negative of the entire Weah/Costa episode: a white player breaks a black players nose, citing racial abuse as his motive. Then the white player compounds his crime by going public with his opinions that "All those black guys are racist and just don`t trust whites". The simpering, you-The-Man attitude that many celebrated Weah`s attack on Costa with isn`t too easy to imagine when the roles are reversed, is it? Is Costa not innocent until proven guilty? Or in this case, do we ignore what actually happened and portray Weah as the victim because it`s more important to highlight racism across society than deal in truth? Saying racism is a Bad Thing is all very well, but don`t use this non-sequitur as a means to scrub-away the vile thing that Weah did. Equality should be a birth-right of everyone, Weah included, but it is a double-edged sword. If Weah wants to "play the race card" so heavily, as I feel he is doing in this situation, then I regard it as completely creditable to criticize him for it. I don`t criticize him because he`s black or white or green, but because he`s a person who is using *his* skin colour as a launching-pad to make prejudiced observations on *other* people of a different skin colour. Just as a personal aside to all of this, Riff, do you honestly feel that you would still be addressing this issue to me had I been attacking a white player instead of a black one for exactly the same crimes? I dislike all idiots, of any nationality or race, with equal prejudice. ----------------------------- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (JWilk5) Subject: Re: Racism in Football Date: Dec 16, 1996 >Weah`s statement that white people automatically think that black people >in fast cars are drug-dealers is racist by definition. Weah made the comments to which you are referring long before the Costa incident. Its not accurate to say that he made those comments in an attempt to justify his current situation. The comments were actually made last year during an interview with an Italian newspaper, and were based on his personal experiences of being stopped on more than one occasion by police in Milan and in Paris when he was with PSG. In the context in which he originally made his comments, he was mainly referring to the police, not to people in general. And he's certainly not the only black athlete to have expressed these same sentiments. ---------------------------------------------- From: Riffster Subject: Re: Racism in Football Date: Dec 16, 1996 Snaps wrote: >Weah`s statement that white people automatically think that black people >in fast cars are drug-dealers is racist by definition. I don't know about England. But here blacks are often pulled over if they are driving nice cars in certain suburbs. Do you think they are being pulled over for no reason because the police are concerned their tires may be a bit flat? Do you get racial insults thrown at you every time you go to work? I hope not. I don't believe that Weah has a history of resorting to fisticuffs. Quite the opposite -- he was supposed to accept a FIFA Sportsmanship Award later this year. Unfortunately that run of noblesse oblige has apparently come to an end. >Just as a mental excercise, try and create a photo-negative of the entire >Weah/Costa episode: You are assuming that both black and white start at an equal point in this hypothetical argument of yours. Such a case doesn't exist. If a black calls me honky, my general reaction is mirth because I don't get denied credit, apartments, jobs, etc. because of my skin color. Every time someone says the "n" word or whatever, it is a reminder to most blacks (not all) of every moment that they have been told they are not equal. Your failure to understand that point is the reason why you cannot understand black anger. I am not saying that such anger, if displayed inappropriately (as Weah apparently did), should not be punished. What I am saying is that racial insults are by definition inflammatory statements that demand some sort of reprimand in order to preserve not only the peace, but some semblance of equality. We are not inheritors of recent slavery, lynchings and victims of current prejuidice. George Weah is a member of a race that has suffered these acts and continues to suffer lesser, but still despicable, acts. >The simpering, you-The-Man attitude that many celebrated Weah`s attack on >Costa with isn`t too easy to imagine when the roles are reversed, is it? Again you are injecting your feelings as assumptions into the argument. Do you know Weah's state of emotions at the time? How do you know that he was simpering? Or that he even knows about "YOU THE MAN" attitudes? Maybe he just plain lost his temper! Like you and I as rational (and sometimes not too rational) white people do. But then, there is no concept of *that* is there -- just that we lost our temper. Hmmmmm. > Is Costa not innocent until proven guilty? Didn't say he was (guilty). Always said IF he said the things that are alledged. That is why an investigation should be made. Although my hopefully cynical interpretation of any investigation centering in a tunnel in Oporto means that no "objective" witnesses will be found. Jardel is hardly a good source, nor is Weah's wife. The only hope may be that some fan or journalist from neither Italy nor Portugal and who isn't black or white (!) was there. This tells you what I think will come from any investigation into the matter -- bloody nothing. Any decision made will probably be made on the wrong criteria. But that wouldn't be a first for FIFA. >Saying racism is a Bad Thing is all very well, but don`t use this >non-sequitur as a means to scrub-away the vile thing that Weah did. Didn't do that. And a non-sequitur is a little more trivial a matter than the matter of race relations. Saying "Sugar is nice" is a non- sequitur, saying "Racism is bad" is a truism, maybe often said, but unfortunately not really believed often enough. I have never said that Weah should be excused for what he did, only that investigations be made into whether Costa directed verbal and physical insults. If Costa did make such statements, he should be liable to face punitive action like you or me would for directing racial insults to a co-worker. >[...] he`s a person who is using *his* skin colour as a launching-pad to >make prejudiced observations on *other* people of a different skin colour. Only because he has suffered racial insults from people of other colors. Often. Ask Paul Ince. Ask Marcel DeSailly. They have all talked of racial epithets from the stands around Europe. You and I don't get routinely insulted at work because we are white. Weah isn't to be excused for his physical aggression. But I won't say he is playing a race card, unless it is proven that no racial antics took place. I think it would be more accurate to say that rather than being a launching- pad, George has been a artillery target for constant humiliation and degradation. Your inability to understand how demeaning those actions can be is understandable, but your carping about how "UNFAIR" racial charges are to whites is not only illogical but sad in their lack of compassion. I think history supports a view that says, in balance, whites have victimized blacks quite a bit more than the reverse. Ergo, racial taunts and their impact are more serious when practiced by whites against blacks than the reverse. Whites have the power. Whites call the shots. Whites routinely villify black players on the pitch. I don't remember any black slave ships coming to Manchester or Chicago in the past several centuries, unless they were loaded with black (not white) slaves. >Just as a personal aside to all of this, Riff, do you honestly feel that >you would still be addressing this issue to me had I been attacking a white >player instead of a black one for exactly the same crimes? I don't know. That case hasn't come up. But the point is moot. Racism is ultimately about power -- blacks don't have it, whites do. Weah may be well off financially, but spiritually he is not allowed some of the dignity of life that you and me as whites assume is our birthright. That is a big loss of power. Every game Weah is constantly reminded that a number of people (cretins tho they may be) around him hate him for no reason better than because he has more melanin in his tissues than you or me. Would the opposite case have happened? Probably not -- and that's because we as whites do not bear a racial cross (we may have our own personal ones) and would probably not lose our tempers over someone yelling "redneck" or "white trash." At least I wouldn't. I know, I have been a few situations where I have been taunted by blacks. Reverse racism does exist -- I don't deny that, but I don't agree with you that it is a factor in this case UNLESS and only unless Weah is lying. If he lies, then shame on him and the consequences will hopefully be his alone. Anyway, I would hope that an honest investigation into the circumstances would take place regardless of which race insulted whom and which race assaulted whom. > I dislike all idiots, of any nationality or race, with equal prejudice. Snaps, I agree with that. And I believe Weah agrees that his actions were idiotic. I just would like to find out if Costa's actions were also stupid and prejuidicial as well. If they were, then they too are inflammatory and liable to reprimand as well. ---------------------------------------------- From: email@example.com (tejinder sidhu) Subject: Re: Racism in Football Date: Dec 18, 1996 Snaps, if I am to assume you are not a racist then you really need to think through your ideas a little better. George Weah spoke based on his experience (a very common one for blacks in USA and Europe) and if he inadvertently slurred some white people who do not think this way it is obviously not a reason for great moral indignation and cries of "reverse- racism" and hypocrisy. You obviously don't have a clue as to what the EXPERIENCE of racism is for black people and I guess I can't expect you to. What's disappointing is that you and many other "non-racist" white people do not have the imagination to reach out and understand that EXPERIENCE. Perhaps you've never experienced genuine hardship in your life,I don't know. Furthermore you made a serious error in generalizing about George Weah's response to adverse situations based on a single incident, conveniently ignoring his exemplary professional and personal record over the years. Dear oh dear. Your comments do not seem very objective. >Just as a mental excercise, try and create a photo-negative of the entire >Weah/Costa episode: Interesting hypothetical situation in some far off land in some other time. >The simpering, you-The-Man attitude that many celebrated Weah`s attack on >Costa with isn`t too easy to imagine when the roles are reversed, is it? That's because it's not too easy to imagine the roles being reversed. > Is Costa not innocent until proven guilty? Fine, COSTA IS INNOCENT! OK? However the reason why many people have been quick to point the finger is based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence surrounding the players and the incident on top of the fact that blacks and racial minorities in general are always at a serious disadvantage in proving their grievances. Ever heard of Rodney King? Take away that infamous videotape and what do you get? Just one more instance of what happens secretly every day in the USA. And what chance for justice for any of the victims? Hell, even WITH the videotape it took a cataclysmic riot before Rodney King finally got justice. Also what "truth" do you speak of? The truth that Costa got his nose broken for picking on the wrong nigger at the wrong time? Or the truth that George Weah is in fact a maniacally violent humanoid who attacks anyone whenever he gets the chance? Or is it both? >Saying racism is a Bad Thing is all very well, but don`t use this >non-sequitur as a means to scrub-away the vile thing that Weah did. The vileness of his action is based on the context in which it happened not on the act itself. If for example it was done in self-defence it could be judged to be JUSTIFIED. If it was done under physical threats and provocation it could be judged to be JUSTIFIED for the same reason. If it was done under personal taunting and humiliation it could be judged to be wrong (i.e. punishable) but perhaps understandable. If it was done purely out of viciousness then it could be judged to be wrong and indeed VILE. All the facts would have to be known before a MORAL JUDGEMENT could be made. Of course based on what is known a punishment is appropriate and Weah accepts this. Obviously in passing a MORAL JUDGEMENT you have already pre-judged the facts of the case. >If Weah wants to "play the race card" so heavily, as I feel he is doing in >this situation, then I regard it as completely creditable to criticize him >for it. Once again Mr. Snaps YOU are making a lot of assumptions about Mr. Weah's motives, and ignoring the reality of endemic racism. > I dislike all idiots, of any nationality or race, with equal prejudice. Don't you mean equal passion? Or was that a Freudian slip? =============================== From: Snaps@hotmail.com (Snaps) Subject: Re: Racism in Football Date: Dec 21, 1996 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: >Don't take Weah's incident out of the social context where it happened, or >you fail to take into consideration the most important aspect of the whole >thing; a black reacting to the structure of society, which happens to be >loaded against him. Yeah, yeah. Tell it to OJ. However, I must congratulate you. You seem to be the only person on RSS who is in a position to offer us apparent proof that Weah *was* racially attacked. How do you know this to be so? As I recall there has been absolutely no substantiated evidence brought forward to confirm this. Now try telling me that you aren`t working to an agenda. The truth is, you already know what you want to say and are merely using some facts and some fiction to foist your politics on me. ========================================== From: email@example.com (tejinder sidhu) Subject: Re: Racism in Football Date: Dec 22, 1996 Snaps wrote: > tejinder sidhu wrote: > >Your comments are severely lacking in logic. You sem to be defensive as > >if someone is making a personal attack on you. Weah pointed out that SOME > >people make negative assumptions about successful black people. If you > >think this is untrue then you are sadly detached from reality. You miss > >the point entirely. >Seeing as you took the trouble to capitalize the word "SOME" then perhaps >you could explain precisely how you feel justified in speaking for George >when he clearly *wasn`t* speaking about "some" people, but generalizing >about *all*. This is getting tedious. Firstly, "When people see a black person.." does NOT indicate a reference to "ALL"- It's just a colloquial catch-all phrase referring to a pervasive tendency. Compare this with other "when people see" type statements and you will realize that at worst the intended meaning is "the majority of people" which is not fundamentally different to "SOME" i.e. it does not absolutize the subject group. E.G. if I say "Japanese people have higher IQs than English people" in a live interview you COULD assume that I am saying ALL Japanese have greater IQs than ALL english but common sense would tell you that this is not the intended meaning, that I am talking about averages or pervasive tendencies. Secondly, claiming that this statement makes Weah a racist is INCORRECT. Racism is based on how you actually treat people-of-a-race physically or verbally, not on what you think people-of-a-race are thinking. In this most extreme case (if I buy your "ALL" argument) Weah might be guilty of ignorance but not racism. If I incorrectly believe that all eskimos are suspicious of american indians I may be ignorant but I am not a racist, because my incorrect belief does not in any way indicate how I will TREAT eskimos. i.e. Weah's comments do not indicate how he would actually treat whites. Is this clear?