Ross Barkley

[GboroRam]

3 hours ago, Albert said:

Gorilla's aren't known for being particularly poor decision makers, and generally comparisons to them have been limited to racism. It's not normally a standard comparison as it's a bit weird. There are plenty of comparisons that can be made that aren't comparing people to apes, which generally is a bad idea regardless of someone's background, for example: "They're like an Alpha Romeo; they look great and all, but when it comes right down to it they don't really know what they want to be", or "They run like they're wearing wellington boots". Such comparisons aren't nice (particularly the Alpha one), but if you're going to make such things, it's better to go for ones that haven't been used in racist contexts. It's the same reason people in Europe don't go around painting Swastikas on everything for good luck anymore, just because it can be used in non-Nazi contexts (and was) doesn't mean that it's a good idea to use it now. 

The reason that such comparisons get the response they do is because such comparisons were used for a long time, and used in a way that was actively harmful to the people they used them against. There appears to be this movement by people who never experienced racism first hand to brush off such concerns as just being able people's feelings, it's not. When such comparisons were made in the past, they were made, then followed by actions. "Black people are essentially apes" was one of those comparisons that people used, and it was followed with treating them as less than human right into the mid, even late 20th century in some places (arguably even now). People getting antsy because such old tropes are being brought up is understandable, there are people who grew up with such things being used against their parents, against them. 

For the record this isn't some PC beatup either, there has been a genuine complaint to the police, he was been suspended by the S*n over it. This isn't people seeing what they want to see, the author of a hate piece attempting to smear the victim of an assault included a comparison between a person of well known Nigerian descent and a gorilla. This isn't controversy for controversy sake, this looks a genuine case of someone trying to get a sneaky racist attack into their article and being caught red handed. 

If says that he didn't know, and argues that he's genuinely an awful journalist, never researches anything, and is just generally ignorant, then maybe, just maybe, he made a really weird and childish comparison. Who knows. 

That's what I was thinking - would you equate stupidity with apes? I wouldn't. A comparison with a goldfish, or a red setter, I understand. Apes are known as more intelligent members of the animal kingdom. Metaphors about apes are about their appearance being like unevolved humans, and their strength. 

[ariotofmyown]

9 hours ago, StringerBell said:

Best post on the thread by a million miles.

Who gives a **** if someone might be a bit racist based on the flimsiest of evidence when the police are acting like the ******* Stasi?

Who gives a f? Perhaps a black or mixed race kid at school who now gets called a gorilla by kids with racist Sun reading parents? If it's ok to do this in a national newspaper, then anyone can do it.

[Anon]

17 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Who gives a f? Perhaps a black or mixed race kid at school who now gets called a gorilla by kids with racist Sun reading parents? If it's ok to do this in a national newspaper, then anyone can do it.

It isn't ok though. Exactly what should happen has happened. The public have reacted to what, even though some of us are skeptical about the racist intent, was a really nasty hitpiece by criticising the writer and the publication. The writer has been suspended and the publication banned from yet another football club. Publishing this **** has been an absolute disaster for the Sun. If your take home message from this entire episode is "now people will think it's ok to be racist" you haven't been paying much attention.

[PistoldPete2]

1 hour ago, Anon said:

It isn't ok though. Exactly what should happen has happened. The public have reacted to what, even though some of us are skeptical about the racist intent, was a really nasty hitpiece by criticising the writer and the publication. The writer has been suspended and the publication banned from yet another football club. Publishing this **** has been an absolute disaster for the Sun. If your take home message from this entire episode is "now people will think it's ok to be racist" you haven't been paying much attention.

There's a certain brand of journalist who think it's ok to say nasty things just for the sake of it... Shock jocks or whatever the print equivalent is. The daily mirror has them too, not just the sun... There's a character called Brian reade who has written some splenetic rants too. 

so although I doubt there was any racist intent, it was still a nasty piece of work, unnecessary, just filling the newspaper with bile.

[dog]

Fwiw you cannot be 'a bit racist '. 

You are or you're not.

[AndyinLiverpool]

This isn't a racism issue. It's a ******** issue. MacKenzie is a one, Joe Anderson is a one.

No need to involve the police.

[Boss]

Every club in football should have banned the Sun...absolute joke of a newspaper

[StringerBell]

2 hours ago, dog said:

Fwiw you cannot be 'a bit racist '. 

You are or you're not.

That's a bit wrong.

[AndyinLiverpool]

Just now, StringerBell said:

That's a bit wrong.

So it must be a bit right. 

I'm confused

[StringerBell]

1 minute ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

So it must be a bit right. 

I'm confused

A bit confused?

[StringerBell]

When clubs ban the Sun what does that mean? Is there a paper shop at Anfield?

[IlsonDerby]

9 hours ago, StringerBell said:

When clubs ban the Sun what does that mean? Is there a paper shop at Anfield?

They ban the journalists associated with from their premises.

[Sith Happens]

At no point does the article suggest Barkley looks like a gorilla because of his backgorund, he is saying he looks like one because he looks thick.

For me the article is an attack on Barclay and totally unfounded or necessary, Mackenzie should be sacked, what does he feel he is gaining by reporting in such a way.

However for me those who are suggesting its racist perhaps should look at themselves. They are the ones who seem to be associating the term gorilla and people from an african background so that maybe makes them the racist ones not Mackenzie.

[Anon]

On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 14:40, eddie said:

Why is it that I could predict with 100% accuracy those who would defend the article without me having to read the thread?

 

On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 14:51, Anon said:

Would you like to point out a single person here who has defended the article?

Boy, it sure is taking a while to answer this simple question. I guess you must be busy.

[Albert]

39 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

At no point does the article suggest Barkley looks like a gorilla because of his backgorund, he is saying he looks like one because he looks thick.

For me the article is an attack on Barclay and totally unfounded or necessary, Mackenzie should be sacked, what does he feel he is gaining by reporting in such a way.

However for me those who are suggesting its racist perhaps should look at themselves. They are the ones who seem to be associating the term gorilla and people from an african background so that maybe makes them the racist ones not Mackenzie.

The term "Gorilla" being associated with racism has a long history, to claim that "people are racist for being concerned about it being used in this way" is not just ridiculous, but demonstrates a lack of understanding for the history of its use, and the concerns people have with racism in general. It's a non-argument, and misses the point of why people are concerned. 

If MacKenzie didn't know about Barkley's Nigerian background, and didn't know that comparing people to apes was a favourite of racists of his day, then maybe it was just an innocent mistake. The problem is of course that it would mean he's so amazingly incompetent that he likely shouldn't be a journalist anyhow, let alone an editor. 

In an case, back to your original point. Say I went and painted a giant Swastika on the front of my house, shaved my head, and wore a red arm band. Do you think that's reasonable? None of those things needs to be about anything bad, none of them need to offend people. The Swastika is a symbol of peace and harmony, shaving ones head is quite a normal practice, and armbands may well become the height of style. Would someone being offended by that be the problem there? 

[LesterRam]

Its funny that both sides of Liverpool now hate the Sun, you see they do agree on something 

The paper should have been shutdown over the Hillsborough débâcle and was only spared through backhanders to bent politicians, regarding Barkley, it was common knowledge that he was mixed race and unfortunately the Sun and Daily Mail are intent on stirring up **** and paying the fines model, some fine journalists at the Mail but its drown out by headline chasers.

[Sith Happens]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

The term "Gorilla" being associated with racism has a long history, to claim that "people are racist for being concerned about it being used in this way" is not just ridiculous, but demonstrates a lack of understanding for the history of its use, and the concerns people have with racism in general. It's a non-argument, and misses the point of why people are concerned. 

If MacKenzie didn't know about Barkley's Nigerian background, and didn't know that comparing people to apes was a favourite of racists of his day, then maybe it was just an innocent mistake. The problem is of course that it would mean he's so amazingly incompetent that he likely shouldn't be a journalist anyhow, let alone an editor. 

In an case, back to your original point. Say I went and painted a giant Swastika on the front of my house, shaved my head, and wore a red arm band. Do you think that's reasonable? None of those things needs to be about anything bad, none of them need to offend people. The Swastika is a symbol of peace and harmony, shaving ones head is quite a normal practice, and armbands may well become the height of style. Would someone being offended by that be the problem there? 

For me the racism angle that everyone is jumping all over is what misses the point. He mentions a look in his eyes like a gorilla in a zoo, suggesting a blank expression ,he doesnt once mention the fact Barkley looks like a gorilla because of his background.

For me the offence here is the attack on a young man who Mackenzie probably has never met, this is what i find unnacceptable.

It seems to me that we are so keen to jump all over the apparant racist angle of this article, the actually true context is being ignored, would this article have been less distasteful had it been written about a different footballer (or anyone) if he had no african background? Are we saying it would have been ok to suggest that person had a look in his eyes like a gorilla suggesting he was thick?

[StringerBell]

This reminds me of when Naomi Campbell got called a chocolate soldier and flipped her nut.

[lrm14]

5 hours ago, Paul71 said:

For me the racism angle that everyone is jumping all over is what misses the point. He mentions a look in his eyes like a gorilla in a zoo, suggesting a blank expression ,he doesnt once mention the fact Barkley looks like a gorilla because of his background.

For me the offence here is the attack on a young man who Mackenzie probably has never met, this is what i find unnacceptable.

It seems to me that we are so keen to jump all over the apparant racist angle of this article, the actually true context is being ignored, would this article have been less distasteful had it been written about a different footballer (or anyone) if he had no african background? Are we saying it would have been ok to suggest that person had a look in his eyes like a gorilla suggesting he was thick?

Well put.

This just the PC brigade trying to be offended for others again while completely ignoring the actual issue at hand. If the left weren't so concerned with tarring everything as offensive for the wrong reasons, they might actually be able to achieve something politically.

[King Kevin]

5 hours ago, Paul71 said:

For me the racism angle that everyone is jumping all over is what misses the point. He mentions a look in his eyes like a gorilla in a zoo, suggesting a blank expression ,he doesnt once mention the fact Barkley looks like a gorilla because of his background.

For me the offence here is the attack on a young man who Mackenzie probably has never met, this is what i find unnacceptable.

It seems to me that we are so keen to jump all over the apparant racist angle of this article, the actually true context is being ignored, would this article have been less distasteful had it been written about a different footballer (or anyone) if he had no african background? Are we saying it would have been ok to suggest that person had a look in his eyes like a gorilla suggesting he was thick?

Good post .I read this without knowing his heritage  and took it as him questioning his intelligence by going down a night club and eyeing up someone else's girlfriend .This is always likely to get you a slap, more so if the girlfriends partner thinks it's because he could due to fame and fortune etc.and the arrogance that may come with it .

Having said that I also can't believe that the article wasn't proof read and an editor or such allowed it in to print..