• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Society of Black Lawyers...

Hootnow said:
The them and us mentality. Love it. We're coming out with all the cliches in this thread. So you and others in this thread who have come up with this genuinely believe that much of the discrimination and racism directed towards minorities is actually their fault?

I'm also interested in exactly how minorities are spinning money from their status seeing as, as a group, they are worse off than the majority?
Click to expand...

I hope this creates a siege mentality at the lane and the atmos improves.

We are NOT going to be bullied here. Loud and proud.
 
jts1882 said:
I think the name of the Society of Black Lawyers is polarising and confrontational, but I don't think anyone is going to be particularly offended.

I think the name Society of White Lawyers would be polarising and confrontational and I think some people would be offended with good reason.

So I don't think you can equate the two. If the Society of White Lawyers was an old society with some historical reason for the name then it might be an acceptable, but if someone started one now it would most likely be for a provocative reason.

I think the Society of Black Lawyers would be better served with a different name. If it's goal is to combat racism then a Society of Lawyers Against Racism would be much more inclusive and serve the cause better. I also think that in the current climate, setting up a Society of Black Footballers would be confrontational. I'm not even sure if black footballers are a minority in the Premier League.
Click to expand...

i am not offended at all, however i see no need for the Socirty to include the " Black" in the title. Its diverse and if it was the word " White" it would be shouted out as racist. One rule for some and not others.
 
A society of black footballers (or a black FA) are some of the worst ideas I have ever heard in my life. Whoever came up with those ideas needs to be shot.
 
Are Tottenham Hotspur fans really OK to use the word Yid at matches?

Spurs fans have used the word "Yiddo" as self-identification for years but does it give rival fans a licence to abuse?

Some questions that bother Spurs fans are relatively transient. Does AVB know what he is doing? Is Tom Huddlestone really a footballer? Others are rather more permanent. Such as: "Is it OK for us to use the word Yid at matches?"

Spurs have long been a club with a large Jewish fanbase and back in the 1970s other fans – predominantly from Arsenal and Chelsea – started to chant Yid as form of racial abuse against Spurs fans. Out of this, something extraordinary – in football terms, at least – emerged. Spurs fans – Jews and non-Jews alike – reclaimed the word Yid for themselves as a term of positive identification.

Spurs fans pride themselves on being among the first to take on racism in football; the highest honour that any player at White Hart Lane can have bestowed on him is to have "Yiddo" echoing around the stadium in recognition of his achievements.

Personally, I've been rather ambivalent on the subject over the years. As a fan, it's impossible not to be carried away by the sheer power of approval that comes with the chant. Several Jewish friends of mine often comment on how moved they are to hear "Yiddo" sung as a show of strength and solidarity instead of abuse. There again, other friends say it makes them feel uncomfortable: Yid is not a word for a largely non-Jewish crowd to reclaim and anything – even if it is not intended as such – that gives opposing fans a licence to use it as an insult should be outlawed.

Recently, I've found myself increasingly in this latter camp. But that doesn't mean I'm not still conflicted. I may no longer sing Yiddo; but I certainly think it at moments of brilliance. And I'm not at all sure that the Association of Black Lawyers is going about things in the right way by calling for an outright ban. Compared to three or four years ago, Yiddo isn't heard nearly as frequently at White Hart Lane nowadays. And not just because we haven't always had a lot to celebrate.

Maybe it's my naive wishy-washy liberalism at play, but I do think that the penny is beginning to drop among the home fans that the Yiddo question is more complicated than it sometimes seems. Football fans hate being told what to do by anyone: a ban would virtually guarantee the chant continues in perpetuity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/nov/09/tottenham-hotspur-fans-yid-chants

The bold bit was something I was just about to post myself.
 
Jordinho said:
Are Tottenham Hotspur fans really OK to use the word Yid at matches?

Spurs fans have used the word "Yiddo" as self-identification for years but does it give rival fans a licence to abuse?

Some questions that bother Spurs fans are relatively transient. Does AVB know what he is doing? Is Tom Huddlestone really a footballer? Others are rather more permanent. Such as: "Is it OK for us to use the word Yid at matches?"

Spurs have long been a club with a large Jewish fanbase and back in the 1970s other fans – predominantly from Arsenal and Chelsea – started to chant Yid as form of racial abuse against Spurs fans. Out of this, something extraordinary – in football terms, at least – emerged. Spurs fans – Jews and non-Jews alike – reclaimed the word Yid for themselves as a term of positive identification.

Spurs fans pride themselves on being among the first to take on racism in football; the highest honour that any player at White Hart Lane can have bestowed on him is to have "Yiddo" echoing around the stadium in recognition of his achievements.

Personally, I've been rather ambivalent on the subject over the years. As a fan, it's impossible not to be carried away by the sheer power of approval that comes with the chant. Several Jewish friends of mine often comment on how moved they are to hear "Yiddo" sung as a show of strength and solidarity instead of abuse. There again, other friends say it makes them feel uncomfortable: Yid is not a word for a largely non-Jewish crowd to reclaim and anything – even if it is not intended as such – that gives opposing fans a licence to use it as an insult should be outlawed.

Recently, I've found myself increasingly in this latter camp. But that doesn't mean I'm not still conflicted. I may no longer sing Yiddo; but I certainly think it at moments of brilliance. And I'm not at all sure that the Association of Black Lawyers is going about things in the right way by calling for an outright ban. Compared to three or four years ago, Yiddo isn't heard nearly as frequently at White Hart Lane nowadays. And not just because we haven't always had a lot to celebrate.

Maybe it's my naive wishy-washy liberalism at play, but I do think that the penny is beginning to drop among the home fans that the Yiddo question is more complicated than it sometimes seems. Football fans hate being told what to do by anyone: a ban would virtually guarantee the chant continues in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

Surely the bold bit is offensive. And Tommy's black! Someone better tell Herbert...
 
Hoot

You seem an educated guy purely from reading your posts. So I'm gonna end my involvement in this thread by saying I think we're gonna have to disagree on a few things. Equality in 2012 and the name of the society being the main two points.

All the best.
 
Roy1983 said:
Hoot

You seem an educated guy purely from reading your posts. So I'm gonna end my involvement in this thread by saying I think we're gonna have to disagree on a few things. Equality in 2012 and the name of the society being the main two points.

All the best.
Click to expand...

Fair play mate, have a good one.
 
Hootnow said:
Fair play mate, have a good one.
Click to expand...

Actually, lol, let me add that if black people are discriminated in the workplace purely down to their skin colour then I would be ashamed to say I'm the same colour as someone who would do that.
 
I'd rather talk about the idiotic thoughts of this Herbert chap, but just feel I need add the following.

My Mum is a very respected interpreter, working for organisations such as the Royal Courts, Metropolitan Police, Home Office, NHS etc etc. She has no agenda when discussing race-related issues but she is adamant that racism in all these types of organisations is still prevalent even today. Whilst the UK as a whole has an incredible mixture of races, religions, colours and the like, all integrating harmoniously (generally), it seem that there could be a valid reason why some minorities may decide to start a specific organisation/society/tinkle-up because they may not confidently feel like they are represented in an equal manner.


Death to all infidels \o/


ps Is tacoiel a Chelski supporter? Or is it QPR or summat?
 
I don't know why I forgot he supports that filthy tinpot club. The audacity to fudging complain about things like this. I always preferred Frank Skinner anyway...
 
AuroRaman said:
I'd rather talk about the idiotic thoughts of this Herbert chap, but just feel I need add the following.

My Mum is a very respected interpreter, working for organisations such as the Royal Courts, Metropolitan Police, Home Office, NHS etc etc. She has no agenda when discussing race-related issues but she is adamant that racism in all these types of organisations is still prevalent even today. Whilst the UK as a whole has an incredible mixture of races, religions, colours and the like, all integrating harmoniously (generally), it seem that there could be a valid reason why some minorities may decide to start a specific organisation/society/tinkle-up because they may not confidently feel like they are represented in an equal manner.


Death to all infidels \o/


ps Is tacoiel a Chelski supporter? Or is it QPR or summat?
Click to expand...

Its inevitable that there will be residual racism for a long time. Many people brought up before the 60s would have seen little indication that there was anything wrong. Many people brought up in the 60s and 70s will have been oblivious to the changes that began. Some people change their views through life, many don't. This generation will be in positions of power so will influence the culture of the organisations. In addition, parents influence the views of their children. So in reality we can't expect racism to disappear overnight, it will take several generations.

I think we can be proud of the changes that we have made, but have to admit that there is more to do. Clearly there is still discrimination against minorities in the workforce and this needs to be challenged. This is where the campaign against the Spurs chants is harmful, as it distracts from the serious problem and trivialises the issue. This can't help but harm the cause of organisations campaigning against racism. That can't be good for anyone.
 
As a lawyer, I have just made my first move to become a fully fledged member of the SoBL.

Will let you know.

Darryl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back