|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jan 31, 2005 20:49:10 GMT 1
I heard a shout of 'Get back to Uganda' aimed at Gus Uhlenbeek from the part of the Riverside nearest to the Station End in the first half Someone explain the racist element of this to me please. As Uhlenbeek was born in Surinam and is a Dutch national I doubt whether he had any idea it was aimed at him. He lives next door to a mate at work, so I could make enquiries. Actually I think the remark must have upset Challis - something had certainly distracted him from football.
|
|
|
Post by Gnosallshrew on Feb 1, 2005 2:05:34 GMT 1
Did anyone shout "Go back to Bristol" at Challis?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2005 11:35:51 GMT 1
Did anyone shout "Go back to Bristol" at Challis? he's already gone - mentally and physically!
|
|
|
Post by TATTOOSHREW on Feb 1, 2005 13:43:32 GMT 1
The fact that whatever was said was aimed specifically at a black player and designed to offend however stupid and inaccurate the comment makes it racist abuse and totally unacceptable. Liked the tannoy announcement but also felt more should have been done by the stewards. (bar or otherwards!)
|
|
|
Post by SlimShandy on Feb 1, 2005 13:51:12 GMT 1
Personally - very anti-racism, signed the red card and everything.
But I think the announcement was both good and bad. Good that there was a warning given, but bad because now all Town fans will be tarred with the same brush. A neutral/one off visitor might tell people that Town have a big racism problem, which IMO we do not.
What should have been done is that the stewards should ahve evicted the perpertrators and then an announcement should have been made saying 'x people have been evicted from the ground for shouting racist abuse'. That would have shown that the club took it seriously and had done somehting, rather than the empty threat of 'we can hear you and we're going to kick you out' which requires something to be done if the racists decide to call the club's bluff.
|
|
|
Post by BlueTone on Feb 1, 2005 18:38:25 GMT 1
There were 2 hard looking lads, bouncer types in plain clothes and with walkie talkie radios mingling with the crowd behind the Wakeman goal. I thought they might have been part of the club's attempt to catch the perpetrators in action.
|
|
|
Post by dan d1977 on Feb 1, 2005 19:45:53 GMT 1
I heard someone call the Referee a pink headed b****** on the wakeman end.that would also have to be considered to be racist even though the guy was white himself.
|
|
|
Post by Cynical Shrew on Feb 1, 2005 20:28:24 GMT 1
Was Cynical Shrew on the Wakeman today?? What went on?? Never herd that announmsnet before and there was nout out of place on the Riverside that i herd. Some more idiots been let into the game again!!! Good to see some one reporting it and action being take though Yes im congratualting the club - shock aint it!!! Perhaps the Stewards could video these disgusting people, and the evidence used to mount a prosecution for incitement to racial hatred. I'm sure a trip to prison might be an education for these scumbags. I understand mobile phones now have videos on them, surely fans nearby could video them (those that aren't beating up the scum)
|
|
|
Post by SlimShandy on Feb 2, 2005 0:04:56 GMT 1
I can't believe I'm replying to this but...
Someone shouted 'Get back to Uganda' at Gus Uhlenbeek. But he's not from Uganda. So either they shouted it because he's black or they're just exceptionally thick and can't read their programme.
Either way, not a good advert for Shrewsbury fans, eh, cynical shrew?
As for finding something important to worry about. It's 60 years since Auschwitz was liberated. And there are still some people who think it's OK/amusing/the right of a 'yokel' to be a racist.
Sorry, cynical, I think it's important.
|
|
|
Post by ianwhit on Feb 2, 2005 1:15:36 GMT 1
read judy's programme notes on saturday.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on Feb 2, 2005 1:28:25 GMT 1
read judy's programme notes on saturday. a disgraceful plug for the programme
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2005 0:32:54 GMT 1
who exactly heard what was supposedly said? PC gone mad in my opinion. Not the opinion shared by Shrewsbury players and the Wycombe players who complained last Saturday about this f**kwit. If anyone hears any abuse tomorrow, please report it to a steward and ensure these idiots are kicked out of our ground. Whilst last Saturday was disgraceful, it was a wake-up call for STFC and they will respond appropriately
|
|
|
Post by Cynical Shrew on Feb 5, 2005 21:24:17 GMT 1
I can't believe I'm replying to this but... Someone shouted 'Get back to Uganda' at Gus Uhlenbeek. But he's not from Uganda. So either they shouted it because he's black or they're just exceptionally thick and can't read their programme. Either way, not a good advert for Shrewsbury fans, eh, cynical shrew? Sorry, cynical, I think it's important. Give me a grand a week for kicking for being not amazingly good at kicking a bag of wind about and I'll take a bit of stick from an unathletic middle-aged bloke in the crowd. Especially in a culture in which my like can do no wrong. I wonder what sort of abuse a (white) copper in the Met puts up with every day? Hows that for a non-sequiter? Idiot shouts abuse at player at a football match and anyone who thinks the reaction to this is OTT is immediatetly hit with Auschwitz
|
|
|
Post by benlennagain on Feb 5, 2005 21:33:31 GMT 1
I hear a "im not racist but" syntax coming on
|
|
|
Post by dachs on Feb 5, 2005 21:50:55 GMT 1
Could someone reproduce the programme notes, or at least give me the gist? Ta
|
|
|
Post by Cynical Shew on Feb 5, 2005 21:55:00 GMT 1
I hear a "im not racist but" syntax coming on Who from? This dreaded phrase is one I have never uttered since it is part an admission of guilt and is terribly defensive. When interregated as to whether one is a racist, one first ask the interrorgater their definition of "racist", since it is highly perjorative. If says something along the lines of superiority then you can laugh at him (Superior? At What? And according to whose definition?) If a "racist" is one who feels a chauvanistic love of his own people, and a desire for them to keep their identity and live their lives without interference from others who are unlike them (although their is nothing wrong with such people and we wish them all the best in their own lands, then happily admit to being a "racist", as it is the mark of a person with sound common sense.
|
|
chrisj
Midland League Division Two
Just get on with it.
Posts: 164
|
Post by chrisj on Feb 6, 2005 13:02:59 GMT 1
If a "racist" is one who feels a chauvanistic love of his own people, and a desire for them to keep their identity and live their lives without interference from others who are unlike them (although their is nothing wrong with such people and we wish them all the best in their own lands, then happily admit to being a "racist", as it is the mark of a person with sound common sense. You know, this is the bit I can never get my head around. "In their own lands." As defined by whom? As of when? Whose land is Jerusalem - Israelis or Palesinians? Whose lands are the US? (Surely you're not suggesting 250 million people be repatriated to their ancestral homelands? It would be logical since the native N. Americans were there first. But which ones, as 'racially' distict groups displaced each other over thousands of years before white settlers arrived.) Whose land is the UK? The Celts who were here before the Anglo-Saxons? The indigenous people the Celts displaced? Shall we get rid of all those barsteward vikings from the north of England? We all know you don't mean them. (And we know why, too.) What about the Heugenots? The Irish? Maybe; after all C18 do like to sing about the IRA but we know who you really do mean, don't we. They're easy to spot because their skin is a different colour. What you really mean is; "In their own lands as defined by British military power in the 19th Century." (Before the pakis and suchlike came here). Why do you pick this particular definition? Because it suits your racial prejudices. You have all the logic of the toddler screaming for sweeties in the supermarket. It's so unfair, we're so stupid we can't see it your way, if only we'd listen the world would be perfect. BTW, I think your idea of racial separitism has been tried - I believe the Afrikaans term is 'Apartheid'? It was shown to have some practical and moral difficulties associated with it's implementation.
|
|
|
Post by SlimShandy on Feb 6, 2005 19:48:06 GMT 1
Hows that for a non-sequiter? Idiot shouts abuse at player at a football match and anyone who thinks the reaction to this is OTT is immediatetly hit with Auschwitz How's that for a non-sequiter. Someone says the reaction to racist abuse is OTT, but then calls the racist an idiot. You're either with 'em or you ain't, Cynical And my point about Auschwitz was if you haven't learned about racial tolerance yet, you ain't going to learn. But do you really think ( I mean really think!) any 'yokel' has the right to shout racially motivated abuse at somebody else?
|
|