Are England's black football players actually mixed race?

DonDaddyD

Triggered by this

Are England's black football players actually mixed race? If they are (they are) is it wrong to identify them as black (which they are not)? What is the logic behind calling them black, and isn't that logic rooted in racial prejudice itself?

Ashley Cole
Rio Ferdinand
Glen Johnson
Joleon Lescott
Theo Walcott
Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain

Why are these players identified as 'black'? Each one of these players has one white parent and one black parent, making them mixed raced. The ONS/Census 2011 ethnicity question would have them categorised as mixed ethnicity black (Caribbean or African) and white.

My personal view is that England, the FA, media insistence on referring to these players as black is a form of racial prejudice in and of itself. It invalidates or ignores the other part of the persons cultural/ethnic heritage.

Would I say my son was black? No I wouldn't. Because it invalidates and ignores the other 50% of his identity (English/Irish) within 50% of his genetic makeup - if we must get technical.

I honestly believe that questions have to be asked as to why these players are being called black, if it is based solely on skin complexion then I think that is wrong. There are Asians darker than me, they are not referred to as black and would be insulted to be called such because their ethnicity is Asian.

Bottom-line, can England's mixed raced players be subjected to racial abuse? Yes they can. But calling them black I think is ignoring another issue.

Discuss.

dhope

If we must get technical then everyone is mixed race, and 'Black' is a pretty blunt term anyway.
Honestly, there are few things in the world I care less for than where someone is actually from, and the issue with racism isn't what label we give to someone that's 30% brown, 60% black and 10% white (oh, but the 60% black is actually 70% Nigerian and 30% West Indian, and the White is English/Irish, but those Irish descended from Scots...) but the fact that the makeup makes any fcuking difference at all.

Edit: I'm going to be out of this pretty quickly btw, as I can't see it going anywhere useful.

bails87

I agree, from a (layman's) genetic view, someone with one 'completely' white parent and one 'completely' black parent is no more black than they are white. But they're 'black enough' for people to make monkey chants at them. It's the not being 'completely' white that causes the problem, the fact that they're not 'completely black' doesn't make the racists stop the abuse.

It's like Obama being called the first black US President, but his mum is white, so is he just another white president, or would "the first non-white president" be more appropriate?

At what point does non-whiteness kick in? 1/2? 1/4? 1/512? Who counts as non-white? What level of 'olive skinnedness' do you need to stop being white?

daviesee

As above.

Best to do away with the labels altogether.

bails87

daviesee wrote:

As above.

Best to do away with the labels altogether.

But then who will Nick Griffin know who to say should be deported?

walkingbootweather

dhope wrote:

If we must get technical then everyone is mixed race.

Very true, though if we can misquote George Orwell, some of us are more mixed than others.

For me the big story here is that one group of players are disatisfied at what the Authorities are doing and much of the Establishment just don't seem to get it.

UndercoverElephant

Saw a comedian at the fringe who was making the same point, more specifically complaining that he didn't want Anton Ferdinand to be classed as black, because he wasn't very good. Rio, on the other hand, he was willing to accept with open arms.

veronese68

Problem is that it then gets too complicated for the tiny mind of your average racist. If they are being abused the abuser doesn't care about exact origin, they just see someone different to themselves and fit that person into one of their neat little over simplified categories. As a result those trying to combat racism have to compartmentalise in a similar way as too many distinctions will over complicate matters. For the press it's also just easier to keep things simple with an amount of lazy journalism.
I get what you're saying, but I think many people will not see the distinction because they only go by what they see (or think they see).

il_principe

Veronese68 wrote:

Problem is that it then gets too complicated for the tiny mind of your average racist. If they are being abused the abuser doesn't care about exact origin, they just see someone different to themselves and fit that person into one of their neat little over simplified categories. As a result those trying to combat racism have to compartmentalise in a similar way as too many distinctions will over complicate matters. For the press it's also just easier to keep things simple with an amount of lazy journalism.
I get what you're saying, but I think many people will not see the distinction because they only go by what they see (or think they see).

This. Surely most racist supporters go by skin tone as much as anything else? So they see a player with dark skin and make monkey noises. They're hardly going to research the background of potential targets before hurling abuse are they? Racists are idiots, whether people are labelled as black or something else is irrelevant in that it will do nothing to address the problem.

EKE_38BPM

Its not just footballers who are called black when they are actually mixed race.

Bob Marley
Barack Obama
Colin Jackson
Slash (Guns and Roses)
Mary Seacole
Ryan Giggs
All of the above have one black parent and one white. I could go on.

I see your point DDD, but the issue in football isn't if all of the parents of the players in question have only African heritage, but getting abuse for the colour of their skin.

When Lazio played Spurs, Spur's 'black' players got similar abuse to the 'black' players of England Under 21 got from the Serbian 'fans'. Lazio, as a club, was fined £32500 which is absolute chicken feed. Probably all players in the Lazio first team get paid that each week, so the club won't even notice that paltry level of fine.

If FIFA, UEFA and the various national FAs want to seriously tackle racism on the terraces then forget about monetary fines (unless they start at £10m) and start kicking teams/countries out of competitions.

English teams were banned from European competition for five years between the 85/86 seasons and 90/91. In that time the hooliganism problem in the English game was seriously tackled. If teams with racist fans suffered the same sort of punishment then maybe the administrators of the teams would take it seriously rather than just writing a cheque and carrying on as normal.

Getting the terminology/designation of the 'black' players is important, but is the wrong issue to take offence at in this case. It is fiddling as Rome burns.

cyclingprop

I'm not sure the issue is creed or colour at all. Ultimately we all bleed the same.

Besides, if we did what should have have been done years ago (deport all the namby pamby crybaby wendyballers), that would really even it out, after all the crying on the pitch clearly shows they are the ones who bleed differently.

Courage Monsieur

Very interesting point DDD, and I agree with what you say.

Ryan Giggs is mixed race? Didn't know that.

And that leads me to think these guys are being called black solely on their appearance.

From here it gets difficult though doesn't it. If someone is 1/4 something, then what.

BTW I am too (east asian / white).

walkingbootweather

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Its not just footballers who are called black when they are actually mixed race.

Bob Marley
Barack Obama
Colin Jackson
Slash (Guns and Roses)
Mary Seacole
Ryan Giggs

And that Fatima girl that did awfully well throwing that circular thing at the Olympics.

Discus

daviesee

walkingbootweather wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Its not just footballers who are called black when they are actually mixed race.

Bob Marley
Barack Obama
Colin Jackson
Slash (Guns and Roses)
Mary Seacole
Ryan Giggs

And that Fatima person that did awfully well throwing that circular thing at the Olympics.

Discus

FTFY

tailwindhome

Dunno

Don't really care.

DonDaddyD

The players are getting abused because of the colour of their skin and this wrong.

I think referring to them or not referring to them as black in British media has little to do with the racial abuse they receive. They are abused on the basis of their skins complexion.

What I believe is that referring to them as black, when they clearly are not, is wrong in and of itself. It, for me, stems from deep rooted racial prejudice. I.e. the offspring of a black slave/second class citizen and a white person would be considered black and with that carried limited social standing. Yes those social and class barriers may have been mostly knocked down but the logic and connotations still appear to be there.

What makes someone white, black or Asian? Or better yet, you have a child with a black or white person (so if you're white you've had a child with a black person or visa versa) is that child black, white or mixed race?

greg66_tri_v2.0

daviesee wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Its not just footballers who are called black when they are actually mixed race.

Bob Marley
Barack Obama
Colin Jackson
Slash (Guns and Roses)
Mary Seacole
Ryan Giggs

And that Fatima person that did awfully well throwing that circular thing at the Olympics.

Discus

FTFY

Two for the list of people who've forgotten that she was a javelin thrower. Apart from which, it would have been a great piece of punnery (if such a thing exists).

EKE_38BPM

walkingbootweather wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Its not just footballers who are called black when they are actually mixed race.

Bob Marley
Barack Obama
Colin Jackson
Slash (Guns and Roses)
Mary Seacole
Ryan Giggs

And that Fatima girl that did awfully well throwing that pointy thing at the Olympics.

Javelin

FTFY but it doesn't work anymore.

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

...England, the FA, media insistence on referring to these players as black is a form of racial prejudice in and of itself.

No. I've read this 8 times now and for the life of me still can't make the mental leap from some arbitrary & generic colour assignment, to racial prejudice. Maybe this country will never resolve its racial issues as long as there are people around who are this desperate to spot racial problems where in reality none exists.

Discuss, as you like to say.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

....What makes someone white, black or Asian? Or better yet, you have a child with a black or white person (so if you're white you've had a child with a black person or visa versa) is that child black, white or mixed race?

More importantly, why do you define them in that way in the first place?

pastey_boy

I'm mixed race and some of the gems I've had thrown my way include Nigger, Paki, Coon, Jungle bunny,Spear chucker and so on as well as being told to get back to my own country and letting me know that I cannot have a council house. Not really happened to me as an adult but it shows that your common garden racist does not let ethnicity come into the equation, only skin colour. Never been called a name that would indicate my mixed origins. Being mixed race and growing up in predominately white surroundings I have been privy to many a racist rant from your average working class white person(s) Works canteens in particular bring out the worst in people.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

The players are getting abused because of the colour of their skin and this wrong.

I think referring to them or not referring to them as black in British media has little to do with the racial abuse they receive. They are abused on the basis of their skins complexion.

What I believe is that referring to them as black, when they clearly are not, is wrong in and of itself. It, for me, stems from deep rooted racial prejudice. I.e. the offspring of a black slave/second class citizen and a white person would be considered black and with that carried limited social standing. Yes those social and class barriers may have been mostly knocked down but the logic and connotations still appear to be there.

What makes someone white, black or Asian? Or better yet, you have a child with a black or white person (so if you're white you've had a child with a black person or visa versa) is that child black, white or mixed race?

Not so. The offspring would have been referred to as mullato, half-caste or coloured.
I see calling a mixed race person black in the media as lazy reporting, but something to get riled about when compared to the abuse those players received on the pitch.
Maybe my viewpoint would be different if I/my child was mixed race. There again, my mum has relatively light skin. Perhaps she has some caucasian blood somewhere in her history? Right, I'm all offended now.

DonDaddyD

Courage Monsieur wrote:

Very interesting point DDD, and I agree with what you say.

Ryan Giggs is mixed race? Didn't know that.

And that leads me to think these guys are being called black solely on their appearance.

From here it gets difficult though doesn't it. If someone is 1/4 something, then what.

BTW I am too (east asian / white).

My personal view is that the person is of mixed heritage. 1/4 something and I'd be leaning to say - if they were filling out the census - that they were white, black or Asian. Unless, of course, on some personal level they felt an affinity with a particular race or both and wanted to state their mixed heritage.

cookeeemonster

not gonna get into this debate but one thing I will say - most of the mixed race people mentioned on this thread associate themselves as black - I've never heard ashley cole or rio or any of the others big up the fact they have a white parent, but I've heard at least some of them describe themselves very much as black.

And lets be honest, if you're heavily into black music (hip hop/r&b)/american street culture and so on it's a hell of a lot cooler being black than not black

I heard a story once where a black man united player (cant remember who) said he was the best looking black player in the league (or something along those lines) and Ryan Giggs responded "no you're not, I am!".

ultimately it's up to the mixed race players to make and stand on this issue. If they feel strongly that they should be portrayed as mixed race and not black/white then they need to make a stand - I've yet to see this happen.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The players are getting abused because of the colour of their skin and this wrong.

I think referring to them or not referring to them as black in British media has little to do with the racial abuse they receive. They are abused on the basis of their skins complexion.

What I believe is that referring to them as black, when they clearly are not, is wrong in and of itself. It, for me, stems from deep rooted racial prejudice. I.e. the offspring of a black slave/second class citizen and a white person would be considered black and with that carried limited social standing. Yes those social and class barriers may have been mostly knocked down but the logic and connotations still appear to be there.

What makes someone white, black or Asian? Or better yet, you have a child with a black or white person (so if you're white you've had a child with a black person or visa versa) is that child black, white or mixed race?

Not so. The offspring would have been referred to as mullato, half-caste or coloured.

That is true, mullato was a name for mixed race people during slavery. I'm talking about the fact that if you were mixed race and light skinned enough not to be considered black you could be born free, whereas your mum would still be slaves.

I see calling a mixed race person black in the media as lazy reporting, but something to get riled about when compared to the abuse those players received on the pitch.

I see this logic as being stunted. Just because there is an even worse action being taken against a group doesn't mean the lesser action should be ignored.

daviesee

CookeeeMonster wrote:

I heard a story once where a black man united player (cant remember who) said he was the best looking black player in the league (or something along those lines) and Ryan Giggs responded "no you're not, I am!".

Paul Ince - also mixed race if you want.

Again, why bother?

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

....What makes someone white, black or Asian? Or better yet, you have a child with a black or white person (so if you're white you've had a child with a black person or visa versa) is that child black, white or mixed race?

More importantly, why do you define them in that way in the first place?

What? So society is completely wrong and ethnic groups are completely inaccurate?

cookiemonster wrote:

most of the mixed race people mentioned on this thread associate themselves as black

Substantiate this. Could be that Rio et al have been called black all their lives that is what they refer to themselves as. I've never heard them refer to any ethnic group. I'm going on what the media calls them and what I know them to be.

CIB wrote:

No. I've read this 8 times now and for the life of me still can't make the mental leap from some arbitrary & generic colour assignment, to racial prejudice. Maybe this country will never resolve its racial issues as long as there are people around who are this desperate to spot racial problems where in reality none exists.

They are being called black and this is done by the British media on the basis of their dark skin tone - which in itself is the same leap that the racist make.

If you have to refer to or identify a person by their ethnicity then the correct thing to do would be to refer to the correct ethnicity. Not see a skin tone and refer to them as black and ignore their other parental heritage.

pastey_boy

What about the surroundings you grow up in ? Surely a mixed race person growing up in all black surroundings would see themselves as black and the opposite person would be more inclined to say they are mixed race.

DonDaddyD

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/ ... ce-britain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15164970

Interesting reads. As we are in Black history month, we often forget the impact multicultural integration has had on British society.

Paulie W

I think you're wrong to suggest that the term 'black' is a product of deep-rooted prejudice. I think historically it was a term claimed and used by people of African or Caribbean descent regardless of whether they had 'white blood' at some stage of their history to reflect their shared experience (of racism) and a shared heritage that was much less visible than that of their 'white' ancestors. In the US there was a strong intellectual movement that argued anyone who had African or Caribbean ancestry, however small a part that might be, should be seen as black - at its extreme this involved academics claiming that Shakespeare was black largely based on how he looked in some of his 'pictures'.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

That is true, mullato was a name for mixed race people during slavery. I'm talking about the fact that if you were mixed race and light skinned enough not to be considered black you could be born free, whereas your mum would still be slaves.

I did not know this. Have you got a source for this? I'm not being arsey, I want to learn more.

DonDaddyD wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I see calling a mixed race person black in the media as lazy reporting, but something to get riled about when compared to the abuse those players received on the pitch.

I see this logic as being stunted. Just because there is an even worse action being taken against a group doesn't mean the lesser action should be ignored.

I mis-typed. I should have written "...but not something to get riled about...".
If the players involved (both Ferdinands, Cole etc) don't mind being 'misrepresented' as black but do mind the abuse they receive from racists, then the racial abuse is more of an issue than a arbitrary and ever changing label of their heritage is.

I still think you are focusing on the more minor issue. If your car was wrapped around a lamp-post you wouldn't worry about having a flat tyre. If you had broken your arm, you wouldn't worry about a chipped fingernail. If your house was on fire, you wouldn't worry about your doorbell battery being flat. I could go on.