I see that BBC are pushing the line that “Asians” are getting more and more into football but apparently racism still plays a part from deterring some of these “asians” from going to a game. Looks like soccer is also institutionally racist, just like every other UK institution. How lucky we are to have the BBC to point these matters out to us.
THE BEAUTIFULLY RACIST GAME?
Bookmark the permalink.
As usual the BBC is full of bollocks. I can’t remember the last time I heard anyone getting racially abused at a football match in England.
Cant’ say the same for our continental brothers though.
Who are these “Asians” anyway? I must say I haven’t seen many Japanese at football recently!
Asia is a huge continent with many disperate races, cultures and religions. In BBC world, everyone from Asia lives in one big happy family. “Asians” is often used as a blanket term to mask differences, i.e. to hide the fact that certain groups (usually Pakistani Muslims)are not integrating or whatever.
The BBC is hermetically sealed in its institutionally racist mindset and really should get out more. A visit to Asia itself would be a start. Everywhere you go there – even in the basketball-obsessed Philippines – you will find kids playing football. The Thais and Malaysians in particular are absolute nuts for football. They love English football especially – does that make THEM racist?
Saying that, Asian teams do suffer by comparison with European teams for the obvious fact of their smaller size. However, that has nothing to do with any inherent racist attitudes and everything to do with simple genetics.
Anonymous (Not Chuffer)
The Japanese love football and have a flourishing professional league. While still a long way behind baseball in popularity, it’s fast moving up the scale in terms of public appeal. I’ve been in Japan for ten years and have seen a dramatic increase in football’s popularity.
JohnW
I know, I was just being fascetious.
Lumping all Asians under on banner as the BBC does is at best patronising and at worst (gulp) racist.
Anon: The BBC interchange ‘Asian’ and ‘Muslim’ when it chooses.
Usually when Muslims have been up to not good (like blowing someone up or hacking their head off) they are called Asians.
When there is some good news about Muslims (like a group haven’t blown someone up) then the BBC calls them Muslims.
As for racist insults. I suggest that you will see more anti white insults at Muslim demonstrations in Trafalgar square than any football match in England.
only white groups can be racist
other coloured groups are celebrations of diversity
anyway, sport is based on talent.
beeb has no understanding of such things
medals for all etc.
How idiotic. This is just about the only area where non-whites are eagerly integrating into British society, yet the BBC chooses to focus on a negative. They even admit that racism plays only “a small part” in “Asian’s” reluctance to attend games. This should be a story celebrating British Sikhs flaunting team colors in their turbans, not frowning over racism and hooliganism from years past.
I seem to recall that hooliganism made plenty of white people in “the local community” decline to get involved as well as non-whites. Oh, and while you’re so concerned about racism, BBC, ask “Asian” Arsenal fans how much they like chants of “I’d rather be a Paki than a Yid”.
More evidence of the BBC’s intellectual failure when it comes to Social Cohesion.
”But racism still plays a small part in deterring more Asians from attending football matches.”
It says ‘small’ – the Beeb are not claiming that football is institutionally racist, it doesn’t claim that anywhere. Bit of creative license there DV?
You know what? Every now and then there is a sensible post here; todays is that Asians is a bad term. I agree. But this story does not warrant a place on a site about BBC bias. The article is a little long (and pointless) but where is the bias? The ‘institutional racism’ bit is DVs creation. Posting stories like this just proves you have no real bias to find, you feel the site has to be updated regularly regardless of whether there is relevant news or not. Said it before, and I’ll say it again, cases like this just show your true agenda is not BBC bias, it’s an anti-‘Asian’ or Muslim (or pick a term you like). Its about complaining and nitpicking, and above all – is a big jab at multicultural/multiethnic Britain. BBC bias is just the justification you can use for typing up rubbish like this.
Wow, i’m begining to think that the only UK institution which isn’t institutionally racist is the BBC.
Gus Haynes: Are you the one that writes the bollocks on the BBC website? You’re thick enough.
you always prove me right when you refuse to debate the point martin. ever noticed how its the crap politicians who make it personal cos they can’t win on the issues? yeah, thats you.
knows nothing, but says it all. and when someone makes a good point, rather than come back at it, you insult.
No Gus it is the blanket use of the term “Asian” that shows the bias. How many ethnic groups are there in Asia? Which Asians are the BBC referring to? The whole continent? How many “Asians” make the grade – or should they be included even if they cannot.? Do you really think that an “Asian” who could play football like George Best, would not snapped up by a club? Football is not a public service its a business – and their business is winning.
jon, you clearly cannot read. in my post at 12.22 I stated that I dislike the term ‘Asian’. and i never said football was racist or prejudice. this article is crap, and it has no place here, which (going back to my point) tells us that if this is the best ‘bias’ DV and co can find, then the BBC isn’t very biased is it??
Gus Haynes | 03.03.09 – 1:36 am |
“I stated that I dislike the term ‘Asian’. and i never said football was racist or prejudice. ”
So the BBC piece is not telling the truth according to you – they are pushing an agenda here, and that is bias. Bias is choosing stories that fit an agenda, no matter how inaccurate they may be, and ignoring others.
Gus,
Rest assured – this is by no means the “best ‘bias’ DV can find”! Bias is everywhere in BBC-land. Even Andrew Marr admits it.
Suggest you do a crash course on BBC bias by looking back through the history of this blog. A nice place to start so you could get your bearings would be that dippy journo (forgot her name) who achieved eternal fame by openly weeping at the death of her hero, Yasser Arafat.
Moreover, if you do know of any articles from BBC-land that are sympathetic to Israel – in particular ones that give equal compassion in reporting the killing of innocent children at the hands of Hamas missile attacks – you will bring them to my attention, won’t you? Just to prove there’s no bias, you understand.
JohnW | 03.03.09 – 2:01 am |
Gus won’t go to threads like that – he chooses to pick up only pieces where he thinks he can defend the BBC.
“The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It’s a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias”
The fact that English football is full of players from all over the world, especially Africa demolishes the BBC’s point.
If there were players of the same quality as Ronaldo in Pakistan or India the top clubs would snap them up straight away. It’s based soley on talent. But I suppose in the liberal world equality comes before talent.
Kegs,
I rather think that if we were actually so lucky as to recruit world-class footballers from Pakistan or India the Left would immediately rail against Brits for perpetuating the Empire and reintroducing slavery. They just never let an opportunity to go by without playing the race card. It’s a veritable industry within the Left – keeping their myriad equality advisors and diversity awareness czars in clover for years.
I got opinion-polled by the BBC about the BBC in my home last night.
You won’t BELIEVE what they asked me…
Five cricketers are gunned down ruthlessly in Lahore and Barbara Plett on BBC1 Breakfast calls the terrorists responsible “militants”. The manipulation of language by the BBC to avoid giving offence to Muslims knows no rational bounds. Obscene. These men were murderous thugs.
Robin,
According to the police chief of Lahore:
“It was a terrorist attack and the terrorists used rocket launchers, hand grenades and other weapons,” he said, adding the police were hunting down the attackers. “Our police sacrificed their lives to protect the Sri Lankan team.”
Seems like a Muslim himself has no qualms about using the “T” word – the word that sadly dare not speak its name in BBC-land.
Thank god for Sky News. Can’t believe BBC 1 news is just about ignoring it.
Tim Marshall on Sky said things are slowly getting out of control in Pakistan. Hmm. They have nukes as well.
I guess the BBC hopes that perhaps the Taliban might take over and use those nukes on the Jews.
You just know someone else is working on a report claiming that cricket is biased against ‘blacks’, right?
What’s to be done? There’s only one answer – Monty, Rio: time for a career change for the both of you.
Can’t be arsed to read all the comments, because I’m sure you guys have it covered. One point that might have been overlooked, take hockey – asians are probably disproportionately over represented in the higher reaches of the game in England. Why ? Because they have a history of playing the game in areas like the Punjab, and they are very good at it.
Backwoodsman
Good point, and I wonder if the BBC will do an article on the under-representation of whites and Africans in Kabaddi?
Enough with the personal spite – all this stuff is too important for such tittle tattle –
–sites like this are dealing with the need to restore free speech and the fight against mind control.
The manipulation of language by the BBC is a huge issue – worth pointing out at every opportunity.
By the way – we all know that ‘Asians’ is a term for people with Indian sub-continent ancestry (in US it refers to every chinese/filipino/korean/japanese type)– but just to use its proper meaning – Japan’s main game after baseball is Rugby.
how does the BBC using the word ‘militants’ (in relation to Pakisitan) appease them? explain to me the significance of using the word militant over the word terrorist?
martin
you think the BBC are ignoring it? its been on 24 news all morning?? and what the fu~k?? you think they want the taleban to take over? wake up man, you sound like a complete idiot without comments like that.
I don’t watch BBC TV very often but when I do I am amazed at the amount of Asian presenters there are.
Just for info — BBC production were long since told to refer to terrorists as militants — the left/liberal mindset for this goes back to the IRA murderers – whom the left instinctively thought of as heroic militants in the face of imperial oppresion – freedom fighters rather than terrorists.
Their ends might be achieved by terrorising you and me – but dont worry, the cause is just.
Any racism in footy these days in my experience only comes out in the context of aggression between rival supporters and the big derby/grudge matches. The rest of the time the whole atmosphere is pretty sanitised.
I’ve never seen anyone “Asian” or otherwise get abuse for just daring to be in the ground, but as a Spurs fan you still get the anti-semitic chanting and abuse from (for example) West Ham, I’ve seen black and Turkish Arsenal fans get some pretty unpleasant abuse from Spurs at stations and I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be an Asian walking past a pub of pissed up Leeds supporters.
Gus Haynes,
Because the word “militant” does not have the same emotional connotation that “terrorist” does. As everyone knows (except you, it seems), the BBC will tell any lie and deny any flat-out truth to avoid offending Muslims. So, it sanitizes the message by using the less emotive word.
Simple, really.
I wonder if the Sri Lankan cricket team’s bus was attacked by terrorists or militants near Lahore today, and I wonder if cricket in Pakistan is “institutionally racist”.
Gus Haynes
Weren’t you Gabby Haynes once?
Got a dictionary handy?
Militant : to be a soldier; aggressive in the support of a cause
Terrorist : a person who employs terror or terrorism as a political weapon
Terrorism : systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
Cockney,
That north London thing you describe between Spurs and Arsenal – isn’t that all part of the to and fro between the Greeks and Turks?
Possibly, it might just be the case that Le Arse have been more successful in getting their local community to support them than Spurs have (not that many people in Tottenham can afford £75 for a ticket…) which unfortunately has given some of the more unpleasant Spurs contingent another line of attack on top of the paedophile and rapist songs.
In fairness to Arsenal they’re not big on the anti-semitic stuff, probably because they have a big Jewsish support of their own. That tends to be the residual C18 faction at West Ham and the Yorkshire teams (before they all gor relegated).
OK let’s see how nu BBC speak works for historic events.
The BEF is withdrawing to Calais but is up against ten divisions of German Militants. In other areas German motorised militants over ran our lines near Sedan. In the air several Mescherschmitt 109 Militants were shot down for the loss of only four of our aircraft. Three of the pilots are safe.
We must be on guard for Militant parachutists disguised as nuns…
Hmmm I think I’ll stick to calling a spade a manual digging non gender specific empowerment implement…..
Susan,
Yeah I’ve got the OED handy.
One of the definitions of militant is:
Aggressively active in pursuing a political or social cause, and often favouring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.
There’s also:
A person who strongly espouses a cause, esp. one who is aggressively active in pursuing a political or social cause. In later use also: spec. a member of an ideologically or politically motivated faction or force.
For terrorist:
Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.
And:
One who entertains, professes, or tries to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm; an alarmist, a scaremonger.
So, by dictionary definition, a terrorist doesn’t explicitly use violence, only the threat of it. Whereas militants do use violence. For a political cause. So you’re wrong?
And whoever above said that the problem with using militant over terrorist is that it’s a non-emotive word – of course it bloody is, if you use an emotive word how are you trying to represent the sanitised facts for analysis?
You out there arent taking notice – I’ll repeat – people at the BBC are encouraged to avoid the word ‘terrorist’ because it implies some sort of wrong doing as opposed to a just politcal cause. Thats it.
you know…I used to remember this same arguement was used “black players under represented in premier league” ergo premier league is racist.
Am amused that now one could say “white players under represented in premier league” ergo premier league is racist. Heh heh!
Gus Haynes: Take a look at my posting time shithead. Coming down off your latest fix are we?
The BBC hardly mentioned it this morning, prefering ot big up the fat one eyed ones trip to America instead.
Moron.
martin, its been all over the bbc news all day. so according to your logic, if sky reported it first, that means the BBC is biased or pro-muslim? dont be an idiot. or more of one.
ipreferred
You think militant is more pc?
Attacking a cricket team is pretty emotive in and of itself. So is attacking towers with planes, and blowing up people on tubes.
basically, there is no story regarding use of the words militant or terrorist. its just a bbcbiased attempt to make the BBC seem like it goes easy on islamic extremism (which it doesn’t). its just a lame attempt by some of the contributors here to try and paint the BBC as ‘appeasers’ or whatever way youd chose to phrase.
again, the squabble over the use of a word like this just demonstrates that bias does not exist – it only exists to those who go looking for what they want to find. and when they do that, reality is distorted, and logic and common sense vanishes.
bbcbiased – what a load of crap.
The BBC uses several euphemisms for terrorist. Militant is the preferred euphemism.
Typically, when an incident occurs, the (eg Pakistani) police guy or minister clls it terrorism, an attack by terrorists. But the BBC itself invariably describes them as militants.
If the words terrorist and militant were truly interchangeable, synonomous, 50% of the time the BBC would use each one. But they don’t – because there is a de facto internal instruction to avoid the word terrorist because “it is an emotive term”.
So – when something like Mumbai happens, when the clear object of indiscriminate killing at the railway station and hotels is to create terror – the BBC ALWAYS tones it down to militants. Likewise for other terrorist attacks all over the world. Bombs in marketplaces, massacres of schoolchildren – it is all “militancy”.
Except in Britain on 7/7 – when the first BBC headline used the T word, and someone edited it out. There was a big political fuss which forced the BBC to backtrack.
That is why the BBC is becoming a national shame and disgrace. Moral equivocation, failure to call a spade a spade, twisting of words, sanitising of terrorism.
Damn, the taleban control 1/5th, maybe more, of Pakistan according to Sky News.
There needs to be an invasion.
Gus Haynes: utter crap. The BBC were spouting total crap this morning whilst Sky were breaking the story.
As usual the BBC end up having to follow a story when they fail to kill it off.
Fact is Gus baby if you WANTED to know about the Pakistan story at 8PM this morning you had to watch Sky News NOT the BBC.
BBC News 24 could have broken off from the ever dull and pointless BBC Breakfast, after all the BBC has 3.5 billion a year to run the ‘worlds finest news organisation’ (don’t all laugh) so why didn’t it?
Punish the Monkey: And Sky pointing out that SHARIA law is now used in that northern region.
That’s the same Sharia the BBC want enforced in the UK to ‘settle disputes’
Presumably a man would be able to divorce his wife by stoning her to death then?