Antoine Griezmann

[manpe 10,861]

1 minute ago, The Skipper said:

There’s nothing wrong with what is said there. I genuinely think some CFC fans don’t like Emenalo or didn’t respect his role here because he’s of African descent. 

Some maybe, there are assholes everywhere especially in a community of millions of fans. That post made it sound like an accusation towards members on here.

[The Skipper 20,593]

Just now, manpe said:

Some maybe, there are assholes everywhere especially in a community of millions of fans. That post made it sound like an accusation towards members on here.

That’s what Leif wants you to think - do you seriously think I would call everyone on here racist?

[El P. 1,354]

5 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

There’s nothing wrong with what is said there. I’ll repeat it again. I genuinely think some CFC fans didn’t like Emenalo or didn’t respect his role here because he’s of African descent. That doesn’t mean I said every CFC fan (Leif again putting words in people’s mouth, shock). 

Well, some of us could find that offensive, just like you found what Griezz Griezz did offensive.

[El P. 1,354]

8 minutes ago, The Skipper said:

That’s what Leif wants you to think - do you seriously think I would call everyone on here racist?

Do you seriously think Griezmann wanted to offend someone?

EDIT: I know it's oversimplification, but analogy is on point.

[Leif 6,006]

Skipper, stop digging yourself a hole. I've put no words in your mouth. I said, quoting myself, that you'd 'called Chelsea fans racist'; - also, highlighting another thing I thought you'd said - that fans disliked him 'because he's African.', which you're agreeing tonight was part of your reasoning. 

Did you not stake the claim of racist Chelsea fans re: Emenalo? Are you really saying now, after your quote's pulled up that you didn't? Have i somehow twisted it tonight? 
Sometimes you just need to be quiet. Or try and create some sort of technicality* to get yourself off (in 2 ways).

To finish. And I mean finish; stop mentioning me.
I didn't say you called every Chelsea fan racist,* fucking fool.You said that those who disliked Emenalo had racism in them. That's what I brought up tonight, and that's what you said then.

(I hope I don't get an official warning & temporary ban now like the last time you questioned my integrity; I like it on here. I do understand though that I've said 'fucking' and 'fool', which is admittedly worse than claiming some strangers are racist.)

Anyway, you've nothing to defend if i'm bullshitting & exaggerating (your own quote is right there; how much could i really stretch the truth and smear you, given that?). Take the night off; why debate lies.

[Spike 12,049]

3 hours ago, the wes said:

Some people are to quick at firing out the racist card out 2bh I found it funny two African American guys dress up has two white girls in White Chicks movie  but when a white guy dress up has a black guy hes knowing has a racist fs griezmann best friend is pogba some people need to stop living in the stone age and grow up 

That is a false equivalency. A ninety minute film made in a time near racial equality isn't the same as decades of lampooning second-class citizens.Something can be often on a superficial glance be the same thing; but when the two (in this case whiteface and blackface) are deconstructed and examined thoroughly there are discernible differences between the two. It is simple to say that using anyone's race as a prop in comedy or any sort of media is or can be offensive. That isn't the argument, however only one has, by association decades of societal and cultural racism attached. This is guilt via association, in a vacuum there is 100% nothing wrong with what Griezmann has done but the incident doesn't exist within a vacuum; it exists in reality and in this reality conclusions can be drawn from what Griezmann has done via association. There is also concern that normalisation or removal of taboos can in course bring a return to everyday racial imagery.

If you will, there is also a difference between making a Jew joke and a Jewish joke concerning Nazis. On the superficial level they are the same, but with further association one can take the latter far more offensive given the Holocaust. Personally, I'm not offended, nor do I particularly care. I'm for free speech, he can do whatever he pleases, but he must also accept the consequences living in a media spotlight as an internationally famous athlete. I make racey, on the nose, over the edge jokes all the time; in my personal life where I know people can't misconstrue my words and actions. If he didn't post this on social media, there would be no problem; his black friends may have thought it was a cool costume, they would have had fun and moved on.

[Spike 12,049]

Another interesting thing to think about is: why is it offensive? I don't think the imagery itself, nor the over-the-top caricatures are inherently racist. I think the root of the offence is the lack of power and decision, black people didn't choose to be portrayed in that manner, they had no influence to be portrayed in any other manner, nor were they. If we existed in an alternate reality were the blackface imagery was created by a black person themself the overall perception of it would be completely different. In media there are often goofy depictions of white people but they are accepted because more often than not they are created by white people.

Besides, creating caricatures have been an effective tool for creating an us vs them mentality for hundreds of years. We see it all the time today, in political cartoons (the opposing party often drawn as fools), propaganda, marketing, etc. The British would draw French soldiers and Napoleon himself as goofy looking midgets during the Napoleonic wars, the Americans drew the Japanese as buck-toothed squinty eyed kamikaze pilots during WW2, and the reverse is true as well. Compare these two images from WW2. Despite not looking too different at all, the posters portray a Chinese and Tawainese man favourably while making the Japanese... less so. It can be very dehumanising.

 

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

Why is it wrong?
Historically the only objectively racist thing about blackface isn't the portrayal of culture and stereotypes but the refusal of hiring black performers to fill those roles. If you go back and watch old cartoons you'll find that most of the blackface characters are actually quite endearing or the 'hero'. It was a bizarre admiration of black culture and arts (why were black even portrayed at all, you could ask). I recall watching an old Felix cartoon that portrayed the very stereotypical black man as the hero along with Felix and the white man as the evil oppressor that hated fun. I recall another instance from the British comedy show 'The Goodies', I remember clearly Graeme dresses as 'black boxer' in an attempt to beat up Bill's Lancaster martial art. I thought it was hilarious not because it lampooned black people but because of the out right absurdity of it all. It is a completely blown out of proportion sensitivity that is a complete non-issue. The fact that people even bring this up is pathetic. Oh wow, Antoine Griezmann is fond of some of the greatest and most important black American athletes of all time and wants to dress up as them - emulate them, but oh it resembles something that happened 80 years ago... I can understand the distaste for the exaggerated lips, the blackskin, the nappy hair, I believe everyone dislikes their features represented in such an exaggerated manner, but I don't believe Griezmann's costume has only of those features, correct? Now we have to ask what exactly is 'wrong' with Griezmann's costume? Is it wrong in the context of itself, or is it wrong because it reminds people something distasteful? 
But that is just an American view-point of blackface; nobody wants all their representation in the media to be done in mimicry or farce. Does France or Spain have a history of issues with blackface? I also thought it was a common celebration at Christmas in the Netherlands for the character Zwart Piet? English theatre also has a history of blackface as one of the greatest characters in English literature is portrayed in blackface (a Moorface rather): Othello. 

I will bet a small fortune you are not black. What you fail to understand in your 'vast knowledge of blackface' is most instances of it were used to degrade, demean and demonize an entire race. How could you look at that, have some knowledge of it, and then say people who are outraged are too sensitive? Is blackface not a sensitive issue? Or is that also marginalized because your mancrush takes precedence?

Are you so tone deaf that you can't see that ones skin tone isn't a fu_king costume? The history of blackface should make any utterance of it off limits much like the use of the n-word. The idea of "blacking up" at its ROOTS is racist! I'm suppose to get over it because some idiot with a bunch of followers said he didn't mean it? You mean to tell me that none of the FFF, La Liga or Uefa have no code of conduct that would tell this asshole that something like this can be deemed highly offensive? That his PR people haven't briefed him on race relations and conduct? That he's never in his life come across an press clipping or anything of the sort condemning blackface? Sorry not buying any of that. And if it does happen to be true then football hasn't gone far enough to educate its employees.

I often wonder what kind of outrage this would meet if he decided to pin his eyelids back and go dressed up as Kagawa! What I'm highlighting here is how you perceive racism is predicated from your position in life AND how society as a whole views the victims. Perfect example of this is american sports and the teams washington redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, Atlanta braves and a whole host of college teams. You think if native culture and heritage were viewed with any sort of respect and dignity those names would be allowed to exist? Not in my bubble.

Griezmann is 100000% wrong and the only people who are calling it SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS are the ones that (a) haven't educated themselves on the history of it ( come from an upbringing that has sheltered them and thus makes it hard empathize with issues of race © are racist (d) are fanboys with mancrushes who can't live with the notion the object of their affection has done something wrong!


In the case of zwarte piet Sorry but zwarte piet was racist from its inception! The Dutch were HUGE colonizers and that image was used to demonize blacks and to poison the minds of the locals. It's propaganda that justifies colonization.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

Another interesting thing to think about is: why is it offensive? I don't think the imagery itself, nor the over-the-top caricatures are inherently racist. I think the root of the offence is the lack of power and decision, black people didn't choose to be portrayed in that manner, they had no influence to be portrayed in any other manner, nor were they. If we existed in an alternate reality were the blackface imagery was created by a black person themself the overall perception of it would be completely different. In media there are often goofy depictions of white people but they are accepted because more often than not they are created by white people.
Besides, creating caricatures have been an effective tool for creating an us vs them mentality for hundreds of years. We see it all the time today, in political cartoons (the opposing party often drawn as fools), propaganda, marketing, etc. The British would draw French soldiers and Napoleon himself as goofy looking midgets during the Napoleonic wars, the Americans drew the Japanese as buck-toothed squinty eyed kamikaze pilots during WW2, and the reverse is true as well. Compare these two images from WW2. Despite not looking too different at all, the posters portray a Chinese and Tawainese man favourably while making the Japanese... less so. It can be very dehumanising.
 

Honestly. STFU!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

Griezmann is a well renowned footballer, has a huge platform, he has to be careful with everything he posts on social media, it’ll get scrutinised. 
In my opinion Griezmann was at fault for being very stupid and insensitive, he is not racist per se... But, we need to condemn blackface because you don’t need to blacken yourself up to imitate a black person (vice versa) and because of the history behind it.
I can’t blame you for not understanding what sort of experiences or memories it would bring up for any individual who was offended by what Griezmann did because you won’t have experienced why they’re offended by it yourself. I was offended, hence why I’m pointing out the history behind what Griezmann did. I don’t believe I’m wrong in this case. What is wrong is not trying to educate the offender. Not everyone can rationally do that, but that doesn’t mean what they’re angry about automatically becomes void and false. That’s the narrative I’m seeing here which I truly believe is wrong. 

Gold star to you mon frere!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spike 12,049]

33 minutes ago, Chelsea Legend 11 said:

 

Honestly. STFU!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why? Because I think people in power like to belittle those they see as different or the enemy? My point was the people use caricature all the time to dehumanise people, the exact point you are making. So why, do you tell me to shut up?

 

36 minutes ago, Chelsea Legend 11 said:

 

I will bet a small fortune you are not black. What you fail to understand in your 'vast knowledge of blackface' is most instances of it were used to degrade, demean and demonize an entire race. How could you look at that, have some knowledge of it, and then say people who are outraged are too sensitive? Is blackface not a sensitive issue? Or is that also marginalized because your mancrush takes precedence?

Are you so tone deaf that you can't see that ones skin tone isn't a fu_king costume? The history of blackface should make any utterance of it off limits much like the use of the n-word. The idea of "blacking up" at its ROOTS is racist! I'm suppose to get over it because some idiot with a bunch of followers said he didn't mean it? You mean to tell me that none of the FFF, La Liga or Uefa have no code of conduct that would tell this asshole that something like this can be deemed highly offensive? That his PR people haven't briefed him on race relations and conduct? That he's never in his life come across an press clipping or anything of the sort condemning blackface? Sorry not buying any of that. And if it does happen to be true then football hasn't gone far enough to educate its employees.

I often wonder what kind of outrage this would meet if he decided to pin his eyelids back and go dressed up as Kagawa! What I'm highlighting here is how you perceive racism is predicated from your position in life AND how society as a whole views the victims. Perfect example of this is american sports and the teams washington redskins, Chicago Blackhawks, Atlanta braves and a whole host of college teams. You think if native culture and heritage were viewed with any sort of respect and dignity those names would be allowed to exist? Not in my bubble.

Griezmann is 100000% wrong and the only people who are calling it SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS are the ones that (a) haven't educated themselves on the history of it ( come from an upbringing that has sheltered them and thus makes it hard empathize with issues of race © are racist (d) are fanboys with mancrushes who can't live with the notion the object of their affection has done something wrong!


In the case of zwarte piet Sorry but zwarte piet was racist from its inception! The Dutch were HUGE colonizers and that image was used to demonize blacks and to poison the minds of the locals. It's propaganda that justifies colonization.

 

I didn't state that I have a 'vast knowledge of blackface'; just stating a few instance of what I've observed, I've neither denied that it there weren't offensive uses of blackface either (in fact I openly state the opposite). I didn't state that people are too sensitive. Your arguing points that i haven't even made, in fact you are putting words that have been said by others in my mouth. I was playing devil's advocate as previously mentioned and I like to know why people think the way they do.

The Chicago Blackhawks were named after a military unit that in turn was named after the Sauk people of the midwest plains - the latter done so in admiration of Chief Black Hawk's bravery and fighting spirit during the Black Hawk War . The Chicago Blackhawks work closely with the Native American population in Illinois and have many programs dedicated to helping them in a range of things from peewee hockey and education.

[Spike 12,049]

I forgot what this site was like, I've been gone so long. It's been a while since I essentially agreed with someone but they just tell me to shut up and tell me why I'm wrong. I remember now, why I don't post often anymore.

[Spike 12,049]

@Chelsea Legend 11 If you will; here is an article written published by the NBC concerning the Blackhawk's name and imagery. https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/madhouse-enforcer/Blackhawks-Making-Effort-to-Engage-Chicagoland-Native-Americans-228360071.html#ixzz3SEGTm0zY

Albeit one man, the Blackhawk's aren't seen in the same light as the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, and Atlanta Braves. As I said earlier sometimes on the surface appearances are the same but when something is further researched it does look different. You are always welcome to have disdain for the Hawks' that is your own prerogative but being a Chicagolander and Blackhawks fan, I thought I'd give a little info on what the name means and where it comes from. 

Also you don't enlighten people by telling them to 'STFU', silencing dialogue brings about nothing but reinforcing ideals. People need to be challenged, not silenced!

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

I didn't state that I have a 'vast knowledge of blackface'; just stating a few instance of what I've observed, I've neither denied that it there weren't offensive uses of blackface either (in fact I openly state the opposite). I didn't state that people are too sensitive. Your arguing points that i haven't even made, in fact you are putting words that have been said by others in my mouth.
The Chicago Blackhawks were named after a military unit that in turn was named after the Sauk people of the midwest plains - the latter done so in admiration of Chief Black Hawk's bravery and fighting spirit during the Black Hawk War . The Chicago Blackhawks work closely with the Native American population in Illinois and have many programs dedicated to helping them in a range of things from peewee hockey and education.

I'm telling you to STFU because you are using a terrible part of human history to explain away why demeaning and demonizing someone is not a reason to be outraged.

Did you not say this: "It is a completely blown out of proportion sensitivity that is a complete non-issue. The fact that people even bring this up is pathetic. Oh wow, Antoine Griezmann is fond of some of the greatest and most important black American athletes of all time and wants to dress up as them - emulate them, but oh it resembles something that happened 80 years ago..."

And again, you point out Chicago but ignore the hundreds of other instances where the native communities have been demeaned. This is why my blood is boiling! You seem to be explaining away injustices by highlighting a few good things that have come of it.

Now in the case of Griezmann none of this applies. He is wrong and I hope football as a whole possesses the presence of mind to either fine him or suspend him! I refuse to accept the ignorance plea

[BlueSunshine 672]

18 minutes ago, Spike said:

I forgot what this site was like, I've been gone so long. It's been a while since I essentially agreed with someone but they just tell me to shut up and tell me why I'm wrong. I remember now, why I don't post often anymore.

Never mind this post, Chelsea Legend 11 just explained his post so there is nothing for me to say on that matter.

Edited December 19, 2017 by BlueSunshine

[Spike 12,049]

11 minutes ago, Chelsea Legend 11 said:

 

I'm telling you to STFU because you are using a terrible part of human history to explain away why demeaning and demonizing someone is not a reason to be outraged.

Did you not say this: "It is a completely blown out of proportion sensitivity that is a complete non-issue. The fact that people even bring this up is pathetic. Oh wow, Antoine Griezmann is fond of some of the greatest and most important black American athletes of all time and wants to dress up as them - emulate them, but oh it resembles something that happened 80 years ago..."

And again, you point out Chicago but ignore the hundreds of other instances where the native communities have been demeaned. This is why my blood is boiling! You seem to be explaining away injustices by highlighting a few good things that have come of it.

Now in the case of Griezmann none of this applies. He is wrong and I hope football as a whole possesses the presence of mind to either fine him or suspend him! I refuse to accept the ignorance plea

 

I rescind that bold remark. I thought that obvious with my following posts.

What are you talking about? I think people should be outraged, you fool! I explained why people don't like being dehumanised, I explained that throughout history people have been dehumanised and this is no different! I am not doing that at all, you are extrapolating my statements into sheer exaggerations. I have merely explained that the Blackhawks aren't seen in the same light as other teams, how in high-water does that statement lend itself to 'explaining away injustices'?  I am not 'ignoring' them! I am just not talking about what I know nothing about, I only know the Blackhawks so I can only speak of them, I am not saying what the Blackhawks do justifies it either. First you mock 'vast knowledge' then you expect me to know everything! Make your mind.

I think you vastly misunderstood my points.

[Spike 12,049]

20 minutes ago, BlueSunshine said:

Never mind this post, Chelsea Legend 11 just explained his post so there is nothing for me to say on that matter.

No, there is still confusion. My post is not about 'using a terrible part of human history to explain away why demeaning and demonizing someone is not a reason to be outraged.'. It is the complete opposite. I used contrasting propaganda from the 40s to illustrate that forever people have used caricatures to dehumanise people and that blackface is no different and that is why it is offensive. I think I clearly pointed out that it is a bad thing and that it is reason to be outraged.