I've also read (but can't remember where) that Clough wouldn't let him train with the rest of the team when he (Clough) found out. I don't think things would be much better today. The reason there aren't any out gay top flight footballers is because they're scared to come out. Max Clifford says that he's been asked by some (didn't say how many) players as to whether they ought to come and told them not to. The risks to their careers are too great. Fashanu had no real career after he came out.

It's a real problem in pro sports in probably most countries.

It's a real problem in pro sports in probably most countries.

I reckon it has more to do with locker room dynamics than anything else though.

Back to racism. Of course Kipling, Conrad and others were racist. They were British at a time when Britain was technologically superior and had the social and organizational skills as well to become the dominant power in the world. They figured there was empirical evidence for their racial superiority stance.

But now we see things differently. When I read Conrad's stories I find them exciting and intriguing, but the racist complacency and contempt that comes through is distasteful to me. Having said that, I'm confident that I and people like me have vestiges of the racism of our grandparents and that I may offend at times without intending to.

Most people from former colonial states, in my experience, are tolerant and forgiving. They can see the person behind the faux pas. For some, however, both from ex-colonial and colonialist backgrounds, debate and advocacy about "racism", however they define it, has become an easy platform leading to public acknowledgement, jobs, lectureships and a good income. I don't know about now, but any proposal for a project to eliminate racism or even "prejudice" used to have a good chance of attracting some government funding; hence jobs and the opportunity to go about as an apostle of the moral high ground. Some people have made quite a career from this.

IMO, the definitions of "racism" and "discrimination" have broadened with PC-ism. We (at least in the US) have become overly sensitive. Just pointing out that there is a difference between races can lead to charges of racism.

IMO, the definitions of "racism" and "discrimination" have broadened with PC-ism. We (at least in the US) have become overly sensitive. Just pointing out that there is a difference between races can lead to charges of racism.

It depends on what differences you're talking about. First of all, scientifically, races don't actually exist in the first place. There are ETHNIC differences. If you are saying a tribe in Africa tends to have darker skin, that's isn't racism. If you say American black people don't have the right kinds of brains to excel in scientific fields, that IS racism.

with Conrad and et al you have to read in terms of the prevailing mentality...Dickens was a racist by anyone's definition; his 'oppressed' were always poor white londoners when slavery was an issue and his incidental 'negro' characters just added some spice to the narrative...and the relationship to PC is significant: here is tutsi arguing with some PC idiot about Mark Twain and racism in Managua in the 80s and the more compelling idea of western imperialism got lost (what were we there for, after all?) I was ready to swing with my balled fist but just decided to get outta there as you couldn't win...(in hindsight, just like with ignorant, xenophobic asians)

the US comedian Lenny Bruce screamed 'nigger!' at the top of his lungs as just like government censorship he saw the danger of misguided liberalism and political correctness...

and here is tutsi with some street dude: 'say, blood...' ...'say...' that can easily misconstrued to be: ' you callin' me an LA negro south central 'blood' gang hoodlum? I'll sue yer ass...'

IMO, the definitions of "racism" and "discrimination" have broadened with PC-ism. We (at least in the US) have become overly sensitive. Just pointing out that there is a difference between races can lead to charges of racism.

It depends on what differences you're talking about. First of all, scientifically, races don't actually exist in the first place. There are ETHNIC differences. If you are saying a tribe in Africa tends to have darker skin, that's isn't racism. If you say American black people don't have the right kinds of brains to excel in scientific fields, that IS racism.

But what if you made the claim that American white men usually lose to black men in the 100 meter dash. Would that be racist?

IMO, the definitions of "racism" and "discrimination" have broadened with PC-ism. We (at least in the US) have become overly sensitive. Just pointing out that there is a difference between races can lead to charges of racism.

It depends on what differences you're talking about. First of all, scientifically, races don't actually exist in the first place. There are ETHNIC differences. If you are saying a tribe in Africa tends to have darker skin, that's isn't racism. If you say American black people don't have the right kinds of brains to excel in scientific fields, that IS racism.

But what if you made the claim that American white men usually lose to black men in the 100 meter dash. Would that be racist?

As you stated it, that isn't really very loaded, just a statement of historical fact, so I think not racist. However its kind of a vague statement anyway. Who was competing. Are black people over-represented in those races to begin with and for what cultural reasons does that happen? At one time in history the top American basketball players were Jews. I reckon some people used to say that was a Jewish sport.

IMO, the definitions of "racism" and "discrimination" have broadened with PC-ism. We (at least in the US) have become overly sensitive. Just pointing out that there is a difference between races can lead to charges of racism.

It depends on what differences you're talking about. First of all, scientifically, races don't actually exist in the first place. There are ETHNIC differences. If you are saying a tribe in Africa tends to have darker skin, that's isn't racism. If you say American black people don't have the right kinds of brains to excel in scientific fields, that IS racism.

To say races don't exist scientifically is irrelevant here. Racism is simply a feeling/exhibition of superiority over someone who is from a different race, usually a different skin colour. Surely this is a natural feeling, which is only overcome by education? It's really just looking down on someone who is different.

For example, in Thailand, pale-skinned Thais look down on dark-skinned Thais, and the dark-skinned Thais, like my fellow-villagers, spend all sorts of money they can't afford on 'whitening creams', which don't work anyway. Why did Michael Jackson, poor man, try to become fair-skinned?

I've lived all my adult life among Asians, and on the whole it's the Caucasians that I find visually repellant at times. Asians, pale or dark, are normal.

I agree that social consciousness of race exists and thus racism exists most everywhere. But that doesn't mean race actually exists. Because it doesn't. Just saying.

A recent example of "racism" from the Congressional Black Congress in the US, who say that calling Obama "cool" is racist...

http://campaign2012....a-racist/592346

I agree that social consciousness of race exists and thus racism exists most everywhere. But that doesn't mean race actually exists. Because it doesn't. Just saying.

You're probably right, Jingthing. This is what they say on Wikipedia:

Race is a classification system lacking a basis in modern biology but which is sometimes used to categorize humans into variously perceived populations or groups by various perceived discrete heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, ethnicity, or linguistic, social, or other status. Although lacking in scientific validity as a phenomenon of natural science, the concept of race remains as a real phenomenon both in popular culture and as a subject of study in social science.

So if they're right, the term "race" and by derivation "racist" simply refers to a perception of difference, usually of pigmentation and/or language, national origins, ethnicity, etc. Immigrant groups in the US and UK, for example, have complained of racism towards visibly different people, i.e. different from the majority of the host population. So, for example, Pakistanis, Africans and Caribbeans have identified themselves as victims of Anglo-Celtic racism in the UK. But hang on! Surely one of the most oppressed and victimized ethnic groups in the UK for hundreds of years has been the Irish, and they're Celts, but now lumped among the oppressors by more recent immigrants. Have the Irish been subjected to "racism" or something else?

And closer to home, an ethnic community that amounts to probably a third of the Thai population, i.e. the Lao from the Northeastern provinces, was subject to serious intimidation in the early years of the last century as Bangkok centralized its bureaucratic control over those provinces, having to cast aside by whatever means the home-grown leaders at all levels. Contempt for the Issan-Lao by Central Thais was open and vicious until quite recently. Was this racism? They're physically and culturally not much different from each other. And the Hmong? In Marxist-Leninist Vientiane in the late 90s I can remember Lao social functions in which among the highlights were nasty put-down jokes about the Hmong. Everyone present roared with laughter, but the jokes were really quite offensive. Are the Hmong racially different from the Lao? I don't think so.

So it seems that race in the mind of the racist refers to physical difference combined with historical disadvantage. Kipling, Conrad and Agatha Christie were racists because they really believed their own nation and ethnicity was dominant and that this was proof that others were inferior. That their remarks and assumptions were rude and offensive didn't seem to occur to them, but there's no indication that they wanted the so-called inferior people to be further disadvantaged, or even to remain so. And not all their fellow-nationals were as insensitive either. The poor old Orientalists who did so much to understand the ancient cultures colonized by their nations, and who were so unfairly misrepresented by Edward Said in the late 70s to the cheering of the "anti-racist", "post-colonialist" crowd, sacrificed their lives in reconstructing the glories of ancient India, Angkor, Bagan, Borobudur, etc in collaboration with native scholars.

I would say that a "racist" is one who rejects people who are different in appearance and/or language and who wants to perpetuate whatever disadvantage those people already experience. If that is the case, I would think that the racism taunt levelled at, e.g. all Anglo-Celtic Englishmen and Englishwomen, or similar Americans or Australians, or whoever, is grossly unfair.

A recent example of "racism" from the Congressional Black Congress in the US, who say that calling Obama "cool" is racist...

http://campaign2012....a-racist/592346

It reads like she did the Q&A after a long lunch. Or maybe the reporter wrote it up after a long lunch.

Either way it's pretty garbled.

Somehow, though, even in our current Age of Silliness, I doubt this degree of silliness will gain much traction.

A recent example of "racism" from the Congressional Black Congress in the US, who say that calling Obama "cool" is racist...

http://campaign2012....a-racist/592346

I would say that the Congressional Black Congress is, like the Black Police Association in the UK, a racist organisation.

The title in itself is racist - seeking to promote one set of views over any other, based on the colour of skin.

Calling Obama cool isn't racist. But there is no doubt that a large segment of the opposition to Obama IS racist. All that birther stuff, obviously racist.

Calling Obama cool isn't racist. But there is no doubt that a large segment of the opposition to Obama IS racist. All that birther stuff, obviously racist.

How is birther racist? It's pretty ridiculous (to put it ever so politely) to say that the reason Obama is suspected by some to have not been born in America is because he is black. Was Obama's white half being racist against his black half when he allowed his publisher's biography of him to say he was born in Kenya?

Calling Obama cool isn't racist. But there is no doubt that a large segment of the opposition to Obama IS racist. All that birther stuff, obviously racist.

If he doesn't have anything to hide...why is he hiding everything?

Calling Obama cool isn't racist. But there is no doubt that a large segment of the opposition to Obama IS racist. All that birther stuff, obviously racist.

If he doesn't have anything to hide...why is he hiding everything?

Real live birthers here. How quaint!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDHmYFIabAE

Calling Obama cool isn't racist. But there is no doubt that a large segment of the opposition to Obama IS racist. All that birther stuff, obviously racist.

How is birther racist? It's pretty ridiculous (to put it ever so politely) to say that the reason Obama is suspected by some to have not been born in America is because he is black. Was Obama's white half being racist against his black half when he allowed his publisher's biography of him to say he was born in Kenya?

I didn't know this. There's something about it here: http://www.examiner.com/article/editor-obama-s-born-kenya-bio-fact-checking-error-bio-used-until-2007

I read Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father", three years ago and don't remember what he says about where he was born, but he seems never to have visited Kenya until he was a young adult.