Is Jack Wilshere racist?

tailwindhome

Jack Wilshere seems to be getting a bit of stick for what seems to be a perfectly reasonable position.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... gland.html

So do you think his comments are racist?

Or are people reading his comments and overlaying them with their own left wing liberal views to infer a racism that just isn't there?

“The only people who should play for England are English people,’’ he said after training at St George’s Park in preparation for Friday’s World Cup qualifier with Montenegro.

“If you live in England for five years it doesn’t make you English. You shouldn’t play. It doesn’t mean you can play for a country. If I went to Spain and lived there for five years I’m not going to play for Spain.’’

nicklouse

used to be like that in Cricket. Only those people lucky enough to be born in the Ridings (Thirdings) of Yorkshire could play for the County. until 1982 when they opend the doors to commeriners.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

Jack Wilshere seems to be getting a bit of stick for what seems to be a perfectly reasonable position.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... gland.html

So do you think his comments are racist?

Or are people reading his comments and overlaying them with their own left wing liberal views to infer a racism that just isn't there?

“The only people who should play for England are English people,’’ he said after training at St George’s Park in preparation for Friday’s World Cup qualifier with Montenegro.

“If you live in England for five years it doesn’t make you English. You shouldn’t play. It doesn’t mean you can play for a country. If I went to Spain and lived there for five years I’m not going to play for Spain.’’

What's the football law on international eligibility?

Eduardo, the Brazilian who plays for Croatia may have something to say about that, as would Podolski, who was born in Poland but moved to Germany when he was two years old. Just about every African player who has kicked a ball for France including Patrick Vieira who was born in Senegal, John Barnes? Mo Farah, he's a huge Arsenal fan, and runs for England... Interstingly Messi was eligible to have played for Spain, though he'd tell you his heart is Argentinian.

He is too good a friend to Emmanuel Frimpong to be racist, who, interestingly came from Ghana at a young age is eligible to play for England but would swim to Ghana if they ever selected him.

Football is different that what passport you hold, its all about where you were born and what is in your heart. I have little respect for the Deco's and Eduardo's of the world who chose to play for another country purely on the basis that they were'nt good enough to be selected by their country of birth. I never agreed with having Sven or Capello as England managers either and thinks that has done more harm to English football than good.

However, as an Arsenal fan first and foremost, I think for his sake Jack Wilshire should shut up, focus on regaining his form and helpign Arsenal to win a trophy since he was, what, 13! If he continues he could well end up missing out on England selection and being replaced by someone who also holds a British passport, registered to England.

daviesee

Maybe, just maybe, he is more worried about his place in the squad.

will3

I don't think that descriminating on the basis of nationality alone is the same as racism. In fact to consider the english to be one "race" might be considered racist in itself as the subject of what constitutes a "race" is a very involved one. So no, requiring some englishness to play for england is not racist. [duh!]

Regarding the foot-the-ball - obviously you have to have a cut off somewhere as to who can play or there would be a very confusing free for all, which leads to the question of where do you draw the line? Somone who's born abroad but grown up here? Sounds OK.

rjsterry

Seems a pretty pointless argument. Nationality is a pretty definite thing: either you have one passport or another. If you have the passport, then you should be eligible. I'm not sure what race has got to do with any of this as that is entirely separate from nationality.

Trouble is, there is no such thing as English nationality. Arguably as England is part of Great Britain, then a British passport should be a minimum, but beyond that I'm not sure.

croptonboy

daviesee wrote:

Maybe, just maybe, he is more worried about his place in the squad.

If only the England squad were good enough for that to be true

Wilshere's comments are in regard to Manchester United's Adnan Januzaj, (who already qualifies to play for Belgium, Serbia, Albania and Turkey) being able to play for England if he lives here for 5 years.

So do I think people should have some English blood in them to qualify playing for England? Yes. Does that make Wilshere and I racist? I don't believe so.

<Highlighted edit>

DonDaddyD

Croptonboy wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Maybe, just maybe, he is more worried about his place in the squad.

If only the England squad were good enough for that to be true

Wilshere's comments are in regard to Manchester United's Adnan Januzaj, (who already qualifies to play for Belgium, Serbia, Albania and Turkey) being able to play for England if he lives here for 5 years.

So do I think people should have some English blood in them to qualify playing for England? No. Does that make Wilshere and I racist? I don't believe so.

Define 'English blood'?

Both my parents are black, My Dad was born in Jamaica and my mother was born over here, both my Grandparents were born in Jamaica. Is my Dad's blood Jamaican or English, my Mum's? My Grandparents who are now British passport holders? When does ones 'blood' become English?

rubertoe

But how long would you have had to be in the country for? to be considered grown up here under 1? under 10? under 15?

That is where it gets ambiguous and I also think that this needs to be a sport wide rather than just football wide. Take cricket, ECB actually pursued KP to join Nott's so that he could get a residency to play cricket for England. Australia fast-tracked an application so that a Pakistani born spinner who left Pakistan in his 20's i believe, so that he could play in this years ashes.

I agree that borders are blured and what one person might say is nationality, someone else may disagree is. Its all about grey.

Its basicaly not a question of race or nationality (dual nationals), It boils down to residency.

daviesee

rjsterry wrote:

Seems a pretty pointless argument. Nationality is a pretty definite thing: either you have one passport or another. If you have the passport, then you should be eligible. I'm not sure what race has got to do with any of this as that is entirely separate from nationality.

Trouble is, there is no such thing as English nationality. Arguably as England is part of Great Britain, then a British passport should be a minimum, but beyond that I'm not sure.

Dual nationality exists.
I know a few people with multiple passports.

agent_buchwald

I’m not going to play for Spain

True, but nothing to do with nationality. Vacancy at the top of the EDL, perhaps he's just thinking about life after football.

croptonboy

Or just merely being patriotic

owenlars

Nationality is the only way you can do it as you either have a nationality or you don't (although some British passport holders are not allowed to live here).

Any other way gets you into a minefield of race/birth/parents/grandparents and and on.

graeme_s-2

DonDaddyD wrote:

Define 'English blood'?

Both my parents are black, My Dad was born in Jamaica and my mother was born over here, both my Grandparents were born in Jamaica. Is my Dad's blood Jamaican or English, my Mum's? My Grandparents who are now British passport holders? When does ones 'blood' become English?

I thought exactly the same. I think it was particularly daft term to use in the Telegraph article. My blood is A positive. you can't define someone's nationality by any characteristic in their blood. Nationality isn't biological it's a construct that we've made up.

I thought Gareth Southgate's comments in the article were much better informed and raised all the right questions around a nuanced subject. Jack Wilshere should probably keep his mouth shut, but I've no idea whether he's racist or not based on the comments quoted above.

veronese68

My Dad, English born of English parents, had a blood transfusion whilst in Italy so he has Italian blood in him. Would this make him eligible to play for Italy?

bigmat

ts just a bit simplistic what he says. I think it should be more than just residency, but there should be some leeway for people who genuinely adopt a country as their own. I think the "English" players in rugby (both codes) and cricket take the mick a bit personally, its a bit like cheering on Froome as a Brit when the guy has never lived here. It comes down to why you support a national side in the first place - for me its because its people that you feel you have some affinity with due to them having been developed in the same culture / environment. I don't see how you could really support a bunch of foreign mercenaries who have just been handed a passprt. That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to struggling to support the English football team though...

daviesee

BigMat wrote:

....That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to struggling to support the English football team though...

Pah!
Dont know how lucky you are!

Try struggling to support a team that wont qualify for anything in generations.

croptonboy

Veronese68 wrote:

My Dad, English born of English parents, had a blood transfusion whilst in Italy so he has Italian blood in him. Would this make him eligible to play for Italy?

Depends how much pasta he eats

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Jack Wilshere seems to be getting a bit of stick for what seems to be a perfectly reasonable position.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... gland.html

So do you think his comments are racist?

Or are people reading his comments and overlaying them with their own left wing liberal views to infer a racism that just isn't there?

“The only people who should play for England are English people,’’ he said after training at St George’s Park in preparation for Friday’s World Cup qualifier with Montenegro.

“If you live in England for five years it doesn’t make you English. You shouldn’t play. It doesn’t mean you can play for a country. If I went to Spain and lived there for five years I’m not going to play for Spain.’’

This sort of attitude would upset some former All Blacks, and some almost-All Blacks...

If you take any national side, the clue's in the name. The typical statement is "representing your country". It's hardly a radical view to say that someone who represents a country in the national side should be, errr, a national of that country.

His objection as I see it is to the rules around truncated periods of residence being enough to qualify for a national side. I would have thought that if you emigrate to a country - settle there permanently and leave behind your original country of nationality - you should be eligible to play for the national side of your adopted nation as soon as the emigration process is complete and your acquire your new nationality (even if, for whatever reason, you retain your old nationality at the same time). The period of residence i the new country isn't relevant.

The idea that you can move to another country for what's really a job (eg performing a contract to play for Real Madrid for five years) and thereby acquire the right to play for the national side of your new residence seems pretty odd to me. Your expectation would be, I'd have thought, that the move is always temporary and that you'll be returning to wherever home is at the end of the assignment.

The bottom line in my view is that there are two routes to acquiring nationality - birth, which you can't do a lot about, and acquisition, which is a formal legal consensual process. Working in a country, without more, is neither of these things, no matter how long you do it for.

DonDaddyD

Incidentally, Mario Balotelli was born in Italy, and wasn't eligible to play for Italy until he was adopted by the family who had taken him into care.

That's the alternative, where you've got people born in a Country, who knows or (at the time) has experience no other culture other than that Country but are not even passport holders because their parents were born elsewhere.

I'd rather what we have now than that.

rjsterry

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Seems a pretty pointless argument. Nationality is a pretty definite thing: either you have one passport or another (or two, possibly even three, but you either have them or don't). If you have the passport, then you should be eligible. I'm not sure what race has got to do with any of this as that is entirely separate from nationality.

Trouble is, there is no such thing as English nationality. Arguably as England is part of Great Britain, then a British passport should be a minimum, but beyond that I'm not sure.

Dual nationality exists.
I know a few people with multiple passports.

True, forgot about that. Editted above.

What's even more daft in this instance is that the ECB also accepts Welsh players to play for "England".

rubertoe

rjsterry wrote:

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Seems a pretty pointless argument. Nationality is a pretty definite thing: either you have one passport or another (or two, possibly even three, but you either have them or don't). If you have the passport, then you should be eligible. I'm not sure what race has got to do with any of this as that is entirely separate from nationality.

Trouble is, there is no such thing as English nationality. Arguably as England is part of Great Britain, then a British passport should be a minimum, but beyond that I'm not sure.

Dual nationality exists.
I know a few people with multiple passports.

True, forgot about that. Editted above.

What's even more daft in this instance is that the ECB also accepts Welsh players to play for "England".

ECB = England and Wales Cricket Board....

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Jack Wilshere seems to be getting a bit of stick for what seems to be a perfectly reasonable position.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... gland.html

So do you think his comments are racist?

Or are people reading his comments and overlaying them with their own left wing liberal views to infer a racism that just isn't there?

“The only people who should play for England are English people,’’ he said after training at St George’s Park in preparation for Friday’s World Cup qualifier with Montenegro.

“If you live in England for five years it doesn’t make you English. You shouldn’t play. It doesn’t mean you can play for a country. If I went to Spain and lived there for five years I’m not going to play for Spain.’’

This sort of attitude would upset some former All Blacks, and some almost-All Blacks...

If you take any national side, the clue's in the name. The typical statement is "representing your country". It's hardly a radical view to say that someone who represents a country in the national side should be, errr, a national of that country.

His objection as I see it is to the rules around truncated periods of residence being enough to qualify for a national side. I would have thought that if you emigrate to a country - settle there permanently and leave behind your original country of nationality - you should be eligible to play for the national side of your adopted nation as soon as the emigration process is complete and your acquire your new nationality (even if, for whatever reason, you retain your old nationality at the same time). The period of residence i the new country isn't relevant.

The idea that you can move to another country for what's really a job (eg performing a contract to play for Real Madrid for five years) and thereby acquire the right to play for the national side of your new residence seems pretty odd to me. Your expectation would be, I'd have thought, that the move is always temporary and that you'll be returning to wherever home is at the end of the assignment.

The bottom line in my view is that there are two routes to acquiring nationality - birth, which you can't do a lot about, and acquisition, which is a formal legal consensual process. Working in a country, without more, is neither of these things, no matter how long you do it for.

All of which is fine where a nation is just one country, but we have a nation (GB) made up of three countries, and a governing body for cricket that represents two of them (E&W). There is no such thing as English nationality (still less English-and-Welsh nationality), so how can nationality be used to define eligibility for an English team?

rjsterry

rubertoe wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

daviesee wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Seems a pretty pointless argument. Nationality is a pretty definite thing: either you have one passport or another (or two, possibly even three, but you either have them or don't). If you have the passport, then you should be eligible. I'm not sure what race has got to do with any of this as that is entirely separate from nationality.

Trouble is, there is no such thing as English nationality. Arguably as England is part of Great Britain, then a British passport should be a minimum, but beyond that I'm not sure.

Dual nationality exists.
I know a few people with multiple passports.

True, forgot about that. Editted above.

What's even more daft in this instance is that the ECB also accepts Welsh players to play for "England".

ECB = England and Wales Cricket Board....

I know, but it's still referred to as the England cricket team. Wilshere seems to have forgotten this as well.

MisterMuncher

See also Ed Joyce, from the well known English city of Dublin.

shortcuts

Racist? Who knows.
Dickhead, absolutely.

MisterMuncher

Isn't that practically a tautology when discussing a professional foot-to-baller?

spen666

owenlars wrote:

...some British passport holders are not allowed to live here

....

Which British passport holders are not allowed to live here (apart from those in prison abroad?) :?: :?: :?:

stu-bim

Is Jack Wilshere racist?

No. His comments quoted above at worst are probably xenophobic

Again residency (whether ordinarily / permanent residency) and citizenship / nationality are all very distinct different legal positions

England cricket team mentioned above is Wales and England but normally referred to as England. Rugby is even more complicated if you look at the 'Irish' team, two different countries

Qualification for an international side and nationality are very strange set up. Look at Almunia from Aresnal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Almunia#International_career

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Jack Wilshere seems to be getting a bit of stick for what seems to be a perfectly reasonable position.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... gland.html

So do you think his comments are racist?

Or are people reading his comments and overlaying them with their own left wing liberal views to infer a racism that just isn't there?

“The only people who should play for England are English people,’’ he said after training at St George’s Park in preparation for Friday’s World Cup qualifier with Montenegro.

“If you live in England for five years it doesn’t make you English. You shouldn’t play. It doesn’t mean you can play for a country. If I went to Spain and lived there for five years I’m not going to play for Spain.’’

This sort of attitude would upset some former All Blacks, and some almost-All Blacks...

If you take any national side, the clue's in the name. The typical statement is "representing your country". It's hardly a radical view to say that someone who represents a country in the national side should be, errr, a national of that country.

His objection as I see it is to the rules around truncated periods of residence being enough to qualify for a national side. I would have thought that if you emigrate to a country - settle there permanently and leave behind your original country of nationality - you should be eligible to play for the national side of your adopted nation as soon as the emigration process is complete and your acquire your new nationality (even if, for whatever reason, you retain your old nationality at the same time). The period of residence i the new country isn't relevant.

The idea that you can move to another country for what's really a job (eg performing a contract to play for Real Madrid for five years) and thereby acquire the right to play for the national side of your new residence seems pretty odd to me. Your expectation would be, I'd have thought, that the move is always temporary and that you'll be returning to wherever home is at the end of the assignment.

The bottom line in my view is that there are two routes to acquiring nationality - birth, which you can't do a lot about, and acquisition, which is a formal legal consensual process. Working in a country, without more, is neither of these things, no matter how long you do it for.

All of which is fine where a nation is just one country, but we have a nation (GB) made up of three countries, and a governing body for cricket that represents two of them (E&W). There is no such thing as English nationality (still less English-and-Welsh nationality), so how can nationality be used to define eligibility for an English team?

Two step solution.

Step 1: abolish Wales.
Step 2: abolish Scotland.

BigJimmyB

Nationality does not = race, so NO.

Is he Xenophobic? Maybe
He is worried about his place in the England squad? Probably

As per DDD, he should shut up, have a fag and crack on with football and stay out of the media.