Racism in European Football

Yeah racism is bad but please don't bring attention to it when I don't want to (e.g. never).
Hilarious reactions to blame the authors of the study.
Also like always people have no clue about how statistical representation works if they think +1000 participants doesn't say anything.

If you want to look for research about the deeper roots of German racism and current trends, it's all there, just look for the Leipzig studies on authoritarianism (Mitte Studien), published every two years. Sadly barely anyone does care.
 
Ayoba said:
After what happened at the Sylt festival, i'm not surprised anymore.
Click to expand...
Funny how only that got the really big attention. It's going round the country for months (news popped up here and there, almost always from Eastern Germany) and nobody really cared, but suddenly as people sing it who are appearing to be the "middle of the society" people care. In a way that's a way of internal racism inside Germany anyway - if "Ossis" sing it, it's expected as they are all Nazis anyway. Doesn't help to close this rift inside the country...
 
stefan92 said:
Funny how only that got the really big attention. It's going round the country for months (news popped up here and there, almost always from Eastern Germany) and nobody really cared, but suddenly as people sing it who are appearing to be the "middle of the society" people care. In a way that's a way of internal racism inside Germany anyway - if "Ossis" sing it, it's expected as they are all Nazis anyway. Doesn't help to close this rift inside the country...
Click to expand...
A huge part of that is probably Sylt's status as the German retreat of choice for the wealthy and well-connected. That such an occurence happens there draws a different sort of attention than the same thing happening in a random similarly sized small town in eastern Germany should be rather understandable, no? It also has a "novelty value" as far as actually being news goes - widespread and open racist tendencies are sadly not a new thing at all in east Germany.
 
This is the result of a very clever and simple strategy, that is to take advantage of how smart ads work and make sure their paid publicity messages reach the right audience.
And also using intelligent communication strategies that are known to have effect on their target audience.

Far right and far left pray on people with some difficulties on their emotional intelligence, they become easy preys to add numbers to their subscribers. Curiously or not, these movements are also pretty much hand-to-hand with flat earthers, incel, antivax, and so on.

They know how to reach their targets and how to cativate them and create communities so they can join.
 
As others have said, it seems bizarre to blame the TV network here.

The numbers are shocking, but surely the network's task is to document this? I don't understand why they're being targeted (might have missed some context).

I have seen people calling for the responsible journalist(s) to be sacked...I mean, what? It's not acceptable to document racism/xenophobia? Isn't that (simply) what they did here?
 
Chesterlestreet said:
As others have said, it seems bizarre to blame the TV network here.

The numbers are shocking, but surely the network's task is to document this? I don't understand why they're being targeted (might have missed some context).

I have seen people calling for the responsible journalist(s) to be sacked...I mean, what? It's not acceptable to document racism/xenophobia? Isn't that (simply) what they did here?
Click to expand...
I believe some thought that this was a question the broadcaster came up with to ask the participants in the survey.
 
Acrobat7 said:
I believe some thought that this was a question the broadcaster came up with to ask the participants in the survey.
Click to expand...

Yes, but why shouldn't they do that?

That seems like - well - journalism to me: research something, ask questions, publish the result.

I genuinely don't understand what the problem is?

"Would you like to see more white players in the national team?"

Is it problematic in and of itself to give people the chance to answer that question in the form of a poll/survey?

I don't see why it should be.

It's very direct, let's say - no beating around the bush. But isn't that actually a good thing? Get it out in the open?
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yes, but why shouldn't they do that?

That seems like - well - journalism to me: research something, ask questions, publish the result.

I genuinely don't understand what the problem is?

"Would you like to see more white players in the national team?"

Is it problematic in and of itself to give people the chance to answer that question in the form of a poll/survey?

I don't see why it should be.

It's very direct, let's say - no beating around the bush. But isn't that actually a good thing? Get it out in the open?
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you.
 
Do you dislike brown people?

"Yes!!"

That question is racist.

Am I doing this right?
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yes, but why shouldn't they do that?

That seems like - well - journalism to me: research something, ask questions, publish the result.

I genuinely don't understand what the problem is?

"Would you like to see more white players in the national team?"

Is it problematic in and of itself to give people the chance to answer that question in the form of a poll/survey?

I don't see why it should be.

It's very direct, let's say - no beating around the bush. But isn't that actually a good thing? Get it out in the open?
Click to expand...
I’m with you and share your confusion. My guess is that someone took this whole thing out of context and then social media did what it does best: present stuff out of context to get people mad.
And now somehow everyone is shooting at the messenger instead of talking about the batshit crazy fact that 20% of people in this country are so confident in their racism, that they openly voice this sentiment in a survey and feel no need to hide their shameful ideology.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Do you dislike brown people?

"Yes!!"

That question is racist.

Am I doing this right?
Click to expand...

Yeah! That's what it comes across like.

Shoot the messenger, basically.

"Would you prefer to live next door to a heterosexual, Christian couple?"

21% of the people surveyed answer: "Yes."

...and I'm going to interpret that as you (the person asking the initial question) having a problem with non-heterosexual, non-Christian couples...because that makes sense, right?
 
Last edited:
Chesterlestreet said:
Yes, but why shouldn't they do that?

That seems like - well - journalism to me: research something, ask questions, publish the result.

I genuinely don't understand what the problem is?

"Would you like to see more white players in the national team?"

Is it problematic in and of itself to give people the chance to answer that question in the form of a poll/survey?

I don't see why it should be.

It's very direct, let's say - no beating around the bush. But isn't that actually a good thing? Get it out in the open?
Click to expand...

I get it and I don't get it. I'm generally all for data so that we can help understand ourselves as human beings better but in certain circumstances I can see how it's potentially dangerous. Not sure this is such an occasion. Some countries will publish racial crime statistics for example, others choosing not to as they fear that should certain ethnic minorities be shown to commit crimes at higher rates then it can lead to racism and discrmination.

I don't really see that here as it's not going to stoke anything in my opinion at least. It's revealing attitudes that are already present instead of causing them. Could see how some might be fearful of it doing that though.

Completely different topic, but I remember a survey being discussed on another forum a long time ago. The result was that the men they asked were more likely to perceive women with tattoos as promiscuous than women without. I remember thinking it said things about men, but some comdemned the entire survey as sexist against women. The survey makers were not labelling women that way, it was the men who answered that were so I thought any ire should be directed at them if there was a problem.

Other studies have produced results showing that both men and women who have tattoos do have more sexual partners than those without on average. More potential for that one to cause harm than the survey seeking perceptions on it, but even that doesn't mean one causes the other, and it passes no judgment of whether that's a good or bad thing. Sounds potentially great if you want to get laid often! You'd be daft to get tatted up with that in mind of course.
 
Last edited:
Chipper said:
Not sure this is such an occasion.
Click to expand...

I can't see how it could be unless the idea is that publishing the numbers will give validation to the people holding these views.

And - well, that is an absurd argument. Those people actually hold those views. It can't possibly be a good thing for progress to not make this known.

Basically, you would be pretending that everything is fine. "We have no problem with racism in this country, we have progressed past that."

Keeping an ugly truth hidden is never a good idea.

And it can under no circumstances be the media's role to keep the truth under wraps - that goes against the very idea of what the media could and should (still, in these fecked-up times) represent.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I can't see how it could be unless the idea is that publishing the numbers will give validation to the people holding these views.

And - well, that is an absurd argument. Those people actually hold those views. It can't possibly be a good thing for progress to not make this known.

Basically, you would be pretending that everything is fine. "We have no problem with racism in this country, we have progressed past that."

Keeping an ugly truth hidden is never a good idea.

And it can under no circumstances be the media's role to keep the truth under wraps - that goes against the very idea of what the media could and should (still, in these fecked-up times) represent.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right, and the statements Nagelsmann and Kimmich made show that they misunderstand the role the media should play (as do those who agree with them).

But ignoring the society, I think the reaction we get from those two is positive news from a football point of view: They want good vibes, they want euphoria around the Euro, they are really looking forward to it and don't want to be dragged down by such negative news. And the way they reacted to it looked much more genuine than the statements and discussions we got around the Qatar world cup. That failure of a team looked like they were just acting roles. This team feels like a real team with a purpose.

Nagelsmann and Kimmich instead of Flick and Goretzka makes a huge difference to this kind of political statements and I like it (I'd even go so far as to claim that this might have played a role to not invite Goretzka, too much focus on how to act "woke" instead of focusing on the game).
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I can't see how it could be unless the idea is that publishing the numbers will give validation to the people holding these views.

And - well, that is an absurd argument. Those people actually hold those views. It can't possibly be a good thing for progress to not make this known.

Basically, you would be pretending that everything is fine. "We have no problem with racism in this country, we have progressed past that."

Keeping an ugly truth hidden is never a good idea.

And it can under no circumstances be the media's role to keep the truth under wraps - that goes against the very idea of what the media could and should (still, in these fecked-up times) represent.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I can see that people who think it would be dangerous to even ask the question and therefore reveal the truth are coming from a good place so I sympathise (is it empathise?) with them as well-meaning human beings but that's it. The actor Morgan Freeman said the best way to ged rid of racism was to stop talking about it in recent years and many subscribe to that point of view I suppose.

I tihnk they're misguided though. There's a big difference between revealing something unsavoury and doing something to cause or advocate for it. It's shooting the messenger if you can't make the distinction.
 
Last edited:
Chipper said:
I agree.

I can see that people who think it would be dangerous to even ask the question and therefore reveal the truth are coming from a good place so I sympathise (is it empathise?) with them as well-meaning human beings but that's it. The actor Morgan Freeman said the best way to ged rid of racism was to stop talking about it in recent years and many subscribe to that point of view I suppose.

I tihnk they're misguided though. There's a big difference between revealing something unsavoury and doing something to cause or advocate for it. It's shooting the messenger if you do that.
Click to expand...
I think it's just a different question. If you want to know how much racism there is, you have to ask such questions. But just asking that and talking about that won't fix racism, I agree with Freeman on this. If you want to get rid of racism, you probably need a different approach. The thing is that talking about racism increases the visibility of "race" as something to distinguish people by. And it's pretty irrelevant. Focusing more on other, more sensible criteria when talking about people would probably help in the long run to weaken the idea, that you can judge people based on race.
 
Being professional sportsmen doesn't give you the right to turn into sociopaths without being called out for it

I wish journalist had the courage to confront them with thism just once
 
We know the World has gone mad. We have such things as dictionaries that tell us what a word means, im so fed up of people changing the meaning of words to suit their agenda.

If someone does not like the color green are we going to call that person prejudice ? Or if a person does not like the taste of a lemon we going to tell them that this is out of order and they must seek psychiatrict help ?

I have no issue with people of any color, for me there are good people and not so good people, it does not matter what color they are. But if someone prefers to be around people of a particular color, as long as there is no hatred and mistreatment of others what is wrong with that ?

For me, absolutely nothing. People need to start minding their own business, prejudices will always exist, policing this type of thing is only going to cause more unrest, which is exactly what we are seeing.

I await the barrage of people who will attack this post, you will get no reply from me.
 
imamuppet said:
But if someone prefers to be around people of a particular color, as long as there is no hatred and mistreatment of others what is wrong with that ?
Click to expand...
i'm not even bothering with the rest because - really now - but this I HAVE to ask you: what possible reason could anyone have to prefer being around people of a particular color, other than racism? :confused:
 
imamuppet said:
We know the World has gone mad. We have such things as dictionaries that tell us what a word means, im so fed up of people changing the meaning of words to suit their agenda.
Click to expand...

You mean words like white, black and brown I assume? If so that is an incredibly odd thing to say. Next level odd.

If someone does not like the color green are we going to call that person prejudice ? Or if a person does not like the taste of a lemon we going to tell them that this is out of order and they must seek psychiatrict help ?
Click to expand...

And do you feel that discrimination against green people, people who like the colour green or people (green or otherwise) who like the taste of lemon is a thing at all, much less a problem?

I have no issue with people of any color, for me there are good people and not so good people, it does not matter what color they are. But if someone prefers to be around people of a particular color, as long as there is no hatred and mistreatment of others what is wrong with that ? For me, absolutely nothing. People need to start minding their own business, prejudices will always exist, policing this type of thing is only going to cause more unrest, which is exactly what we are seeing
Click to expand...

Well done. Have a biscuit.

Again very odd that you dismiss racism as a problem because you don't think you are racist. And people tending to gravitate to people of their own culture isn't inherently racist. But that doesn't mean racism doesn't exists or isn't a problem worth worrying about. And of course the poll in question wasn't this at all anyway.

I await the barrage of people who will attack this post, you will get no reply from me.
Click to expand...

How dare anyone engage you in a discussion on a discussion board, in response to a post that is begging to be torn apart for being extreme nonsense. You don't do nothing about things because you don't do them yourself. Otherwise why would we have laws against things you presumably also don't do, like murder, or kiddy fiddling, or cycling in the fast lane of the motorway?
 
Credit where credit is due, the one thing that person got right was the username.
 
giorno said:
i'm not even bothering with the rest because - really now - but this I HAVE to ask you: what possible reason could anyone have to prefer being around people of a particular color, other than racism? :confused:
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity,
If a man or woman only goes into intimate relationships with people of their own religion/colour..are you labelling them as racist?
 
Bondi77 said:
Just out of curiosity,
If a man or woman only goes into intimate relationships with people of their own religion/colour..are you labelling them as racist?
Click to expand...

What other reason could there be?
 
"Sexual preference" solely based on race is absolutely, undebatably 100% racism.
 
Bondi77 said:
Just out of curiosity,
If a man or woman only goes into intimate relationships with people of their own religion/colour..are you labelling them as racist?
Click to expand...
False equivalence, especially wrt religion

Nice try, off to the the ignore list you go ;)
 
Bondi77 said:
Just out of curiosity,
If a man or woman only goes into intimate relationships with people of their own religion/colour..are you labelling them as racist?
Click to expand...

Religion isn't a race and a whole different discussion.

Excluding people as options for relationships, purely based on their skin colour/ethnicity- is racist. What isn't racist is finding you're culturally incompatible, and that's not something you can decide on first glance. It would require knowledge of their upbringing, values and patterns of behavior.

It's really difficult, because the stereotypes/assumptions we make are often based on previous experiences. I think it's fine to have those assumptions, its about getting the balance of not voicing your assumptions (to offend or influence others) and being open for those assumptions to be proved incorrect. I think a lot of the subtle racist behavior stems from outdated/second hand assumptions. Racial ignorance rather than real racial hatred.
 
20% seems quite a low percentage given what I’ve experienced in Germany on multiple visits. But at least they have something tangible to work on now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.