• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Liam Williams - apology

I wouldn't say it's necessarily 'racist' to don blackface if it's done just to impersonate someone, without the intention of belittling or mocking their race. If it was racist to pretend to be a member of a different race than we'd be calling Gene Wilder racist for his black make-up in Silver Streak, or the Wayans brothers for putting on 'whiteface' for their White Chicks flick. While I do think it's a stupid thing to do, I also think you have to take into consideration the overall situation in which it was done. In other words, not everything is motivated by racism - some just comes from ignorance and stupidity.


das
 
Last edited:
dunno, think it was a Fancy dress, picture is here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...star-blacks-up-for-Wilfried-Bony-costume.html

I'm sure he didn't intend to cause offence, but it's a bit ignorant none the less.

It is racist, even if unintentionally so... it's offensive and making fun of someones skin colour and is steeped in decades of offensive behavior towards black people.

It's quite interesting though, my mrs is dutch and they still do the Black Pete thing each year, it's slightly different but there has been a hell of a lot of discussion over whether or not it should be stopped.

this is interesting...

i wonder if they are friends? him and Bony...

what would make him decide to dress like him (Bony)

did he wake up that morning and go, hey... ill dress like Bony :?

very weird...
 
no idea, it's just amazing he thought it would be ok.

Something that hasn't been touched on is the fact he has a bunch of mates with him who presumably didn't think it right to tell him he was on thin ice/or feel he was grossly in the wrong.

I also wonder if he would have done the same if he had an afro/carribean team mate... I wonder what Michael Tagicakibau thought of his costume.
 
no idea, it's just amazing he thought it would be ok.

Something that hasn't been touched on is the fact he has a bunch of mates with him who presumably didn't think it right to tell him he was on thin ice/or feel he was grossly in the wrong.

I also wonder if he would have done the same if he had an afro/carribean team mate... I wonder what Michael Tagicakibau thought of his costume.

you know what?

i think alcohol was involved... whenever "he" is involved... you kind of forget things :? things you will later look at an go... "facepalm"
 
Won't get too analytical since there is 4 pages of material on this already from posters. I live in a country where there is also small tolerance for overly sensitive PC crawlers. But this isn't one of those times.

Suck it up. It was racist and stupid. Appreciate that everyone has a different opinion and lens which to view the world; but it's pretty bloody obvious. Those kinds of actions serve a purpose, and you know exactly what they're getting at. Racism doesn't have to be in the form of a white cloak, it can be underlying and hidden.

"But I didn't mean to" is not some sort of free pass. It just means you're ignorant as well as racist. Congratulations. People get away with piggish behaviour everyday by producing that kind of reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Not going to comment much on this, but i've read a fair bit about racism and did my dissertation on Islamopobia and xenophobia. Can i just say that i do not regard this to be racist. There is absolutely ZERO evidence of malice, only ignorance to the sensitivities of the past. There is no evidence that he intended to offend, discriminate, or antagonize anybody of any race. People are completely misusing the word and its meaning, which you could argue is ignorant in itself.

Basically, from my point of view it is insensitive and ignorant especially with the position he holds and as a role model but without any intent to project black people as being inferior or himself as superior to, there simply isn't a case for him being racist. It is ignorant for people to mistake insensitivity for racism.

An issue we have generally within the subject of racism is that in the fight against it, we have tended to perceive anything which acknowledges difference as racist. This obviously is a natural human response to the disgusting history of racism and the general strive to rid the world of it. However, due to this we sometimes begin to create injustices in our minds and are unable to fathom a world where we can acknowledge our differences without it resulting in prejudice, discrimination or the creation of the 'other'. It's a sad place to be in, but a better place than ever before generally.
 
Last edited:
**** off that's not racist.
Political correctness has gone too far.

I agree!

Also, I am told, he was on the way to a party at Bony's house?

Is he getting this stick as much because of who he is as what he did?
 
I wouldn't say it's necessarily 'racist' to don blackface if it's done just to impersonate someone, without the intention of belittling or mocking their race. If it was racist to pretend to be a member of a different race than we'd be calling Gene Wilder racist for his black make-up in Silver Streak, or the Wayans brothers for putting on 'whiteface' for their White Chicks flick. While I do think it's a stupid thing to do, I also think you have to take into consideration the overall situation in which it was done. In other words, not everything is motivated by racism - some just comes from ignorance and stupidity.


das

And Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder.

Not going to comment much on this, but i've read a fair bit about racism and did my dissertation on Islamopobia and xenophobia. Can i just say that i do not regard this to be racist. There is absolutely ZERO evidence of malice, only ignorance to the sensitivities of the past. There is no evidence that he intended to offend, discriminate, or antagonize anybody of any race. People are completely misusing the word and its meaning, which you could argue is ignorant in itself.

Basically, from my point of view it is insensitive and ignorant especially with the position he holds and as a role model but without any intent to project black people as being inferior or himself as superior to, there simply isn't a case for him being racist. It is ignorant for people to mistake insensitivity for racism.

An issue we have generally within the subject of racism is that in the fight against it, we have tended to perceive anything which acknowledges difference as racist. This obviously is a natural human response to the disgusting history of racism and the general strive to rid the world of it. However, due to this we sometimes begin to create injustices in our minds and are unable to fathom a world where we can acknowledge our differences without it resulting in prejudice, discrimination or the creation of the 'other'. It's a sad place to be in, but a better place than ever before generally.

I agree with this way of thinking. I can't see any evidence of Williams intending to degrade the black population. He was incredibly naive not to think that there are people out there that would take advantage of this and plaster racism on this act, but he himself is not a racist. There is no message where he is trying to project that blacks are inferior to any other race. This is someone who has gone out on the **** trying to have some fun but forgetting that he is in the public eye where any action can be scrutinized to make a news story. This is seriously over the top political correctness. I would hope that most of the general population would have the common sense to distinguish when someone is meaning to cause offence and when they are not. In my opinion it is those who get all riled up by these non-stories that create any presence of racism. Even the target of this so called racism sees it for what it is - stupidity.
 
Not going to comment much on this, but i've read a fair bit about racism and did my dissertation on Islamopobia and xenophobia. Can i just say that i do not regard this to be racist. There is absolutely ZERO evidence of malice, only ignorance to the sensitivities of the past. There is no evidence that he intended to offend, discriminate, or antagonize anybody of any race. People are completely misusing the word and its meaning, which you could argue is ignorant in itself.

Basically, from my point of view it is insensitive and ignorant especially with the position he holds and as a role model but without any intent to project black people as being inferior or himself as superior to, there simply isn't a case for him being racist. It is ignorant for people to mistake insensitivity for racism.

An issue we have generally within the subject of racism is that in the fight against it, we have tended to perceive anything which acknowledges difference as racist. This obviously is a natural human response to the disgusting history of racism and the general strive to rid the world of it. However, due to this we sometimes begin to create injustices in our minds and are unable to fathom a world where we can acknowledge our differences without it resulting in prejudice, discrimination or the creation of the 'other'. It's a sad place to be in, but a better place than ever before generally.
There's a certain level of ignorance that is inexcusable in these kinds of matters.

If he had lived in a cave his whole life with no connections to the outside, and then someone handed him a jar and told him to black his face up, then yeah, I can accept ignorance as an excuse.

I can understand him not having a clue on blackface's history. But at a minimum, he should be expected to know by his age that race is a sensitive issue. So when he goes to buy or put on something race/religiously/culturally-related (be it blackface, a bindi, a turban etc.), then he should at least find out whether it's acceptable to do so. And it isn't as if it takes a lot of effort either; it's a very quick "can i wear blackface" google search.

It's not outright hateful racism, but it's a level of ignorance that isn't acceptable. Whether you call it racist or not (I would) doesn't really matter; it's an insensitivity towards race (IMO, this is what makes it racist), and it's a problem.

Although I'm more concerned about the people excusing what he did on here, at this point. :huh:
 
Last edited:
As a professional sportsman who already has a reputation for being a bit of a prick why would you risk it.

IMBECILE
 
I'm not convinced it's racism. I think it's stupid. Not being an expert on British popular culture, I wasn't aware 'blackface' had a particularly strong history. I am very aware of its history in American cinema - but I'm not sure it's fair to judge on cultural histories that aren't ones own. It was stupid because the potential for offence was there, and his intentions are not public knowledge. Even so I don't think there is fair grounds for calling racism - for all we know he has huge respect for the player he was imitating..
 
The way I view it is that he's not racist, but the act of blacking up is. He's just stupid enough not/not aware enough to realise that.

It's the equivalent of a kid hearing a slur on the playground and repeating it without knowing the meaning - the kid doesn't know that it's wrong, but it can still cause offence.
 
Decided it is not worth getting into a potential argument over.
 
Last edited:
There's a certain level of ignorance that is inexcusable in these kinds of matters.

If he had lived in a cave his whole life with no connections to the outside, and then someone handed him a jar and told him to black his face up, then yeah, I can accept ignorance as an excuse.

I can understand him not having a clue on blackface's history. But at a minimum, he should be expected to know by his age that race is a sensitive issue. So when he goes to buy or put on something race/religiously/culturally-related (be it blackface, a bindi, a turban etc.), then he should at least find out whether it's acceptable to do so. And it isn't as if it takes a lot of effort either; it's a very quick "can i wear blackface" google search.

It's not outright hateful racism, but it's a level of ignorance that isn't acceptable. Whether you call it racist or not (I would) doesn't really matter; it's an insensitivity towards race (IMO, this is what makes it racist), and it's a problem.

Although I'm more concerned about the people excusing what he did on here, at this point. :huh:



Heres a quick video that everyone should watch. Ever heard of the Frankfurt school, critical theory, cultural marxism etc? The Frankfurt school set up by communists designed to attack capitalist countries from within, like a virus. Basically they couldn't win the economic battle so they turned to culture. The basic principle behind their masterplan was divide the population into groups and make every one of those groups feel oppressed (except for white males of course).


So they basically thought groups to hate. Young girls became angry feminists, blacks became angry blacks, whites hate themselves for "their" past and feel guilty about everything, theres angry gay groups, angry lesbians, Muslims are angry and hate the west, sexual freedom was oppressed, everything and everyone was oppressed (except white males).


And now we have you, j'nuh, who is "concerned" that some of us are not joining in the anger about a costume.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
So a question to you - do you think that Liam's ignorance is on par with those of the numerous politicians or celebrities who have made a one off racist comment?
No and I'm not really sure what your point is here.

Can you please explain to me exactly what exactly makes it racism, if not hateful racism? Being insensitive to another race, is not Racism. This may be so in your opinion, but i think this is more perception than reality. He dressed as a black man, there was nothing more to it as far as we know. This would not fall into the category of racism of any accepted definition of racism. It is different to trying to dress up as an Middle Eastern Looking Muslim, as let's face it, how many people who are not part of this religion would want to go out dressed as their favorite Ayatollah? A bit of common sense is needed here. Still, if someone dressed as a Middle Eastern looking man without intentional malice, projections of inferiority or supremacy, stereotype or prejudice then i'm sorry, this is not racist either. You have to consider context. Either way, it could be misconstrued and as such is rightfully unacceptable and i would never do so myself because i would not want to offend anyone of any culture/race/ethnicity but i'm not ignorant enough to think that those less sensitive to these social conventions are racists.
This is what it boils down to, which definition of racism that you accept or use. Do you use a particular dictionary, a sociologist's definition or a legal definition?

Here's a question - would you rush to a dictionary to look up the definition of a mathematical or scientific term, or would you look it up in an encyclopedia? Dictionaries a good starting point for definitions, but they fall short on complex matters simply because the purpose of dictionaries is to define something concisely. Matters that cannot be defined concisely, you may have to look at alternatives.

David Wellman in Portraits of White Racism argues that it is not singularly intent that defines racism:

that racism extends considerably beyond prejudiced beliefs. The essential feature of racism is not hostility or misperception, but rather the defense of a system from which advantage is derived on the basis of race. The manner in which the defense is articulated - either with hostility or subtlety - is not nearly as important as the fact that it insures the continuation of a privileged relationship. Thus it is necessary to broaden the definition of racism beyond prejudice to include sentiments that in their consequence, if not in their intent, support the racial status quo.

Dr. Helan Enoch Page on racism:

Racism is a global system of material and symbolic resource distribution management more comprehensively defined, in accordance with each of the following principles:

Principle I. Racism is an ideological, structural and historic stratification process by which the population of European descent, through its individual and institutional distress patterns, intentionally has been able to sustain, to its own best advantage, the dynamic mechanics of upward or downward mobility (of fluid status assignment) to the general disadvantage of the population designated as non-white (on a global scale), using skin color, gender, class, ethnicity or nonwestern nationality as the main indexical criteria used for enforcing differential resource allocation decisions that contribute to decisive changes in relative racial standing in ways most favoring the populations designated as 'white.'

Principle II. The aim of this peculiar post-1492 stratification process has been to aggregate an upwardly mobile and putatively 'white' racial group that is stratified internally and that strives to validate its own ascendancy using a shifting last coupon coderange of 'white' cultural practices which are defined as 'white' not on any presumed biological basis, but on the basis of "ideological whiteness"--a field of racial discourse and representation.

Principle III. The conceptual content of this historic and politically-charged discursive field is sustained by racial agents who in many ways articulate and justify the suppression of "ideological blackness" (and every form of non-whiteness this may entail) which may be accomplished by many formal and informal means of institutional domination, routinized interpersonal interactions, cultural imperialism, or by any other racialized means of information control.

Principle IV. As a generative principle of racism, "ideological whiteness" refers to a dual behavioral process entailing enactments of identify formation and resource access legitimation, both of which were practices once overtly recognized as aspects of "white supremacy," but which now may be more subtly and covertly reproduced as an observable and routine set of implicitly prescriptive, but explicitly disavowed white supremacist beliefs and practices to which all who identify as 'white' (or who behave as 'whitened') are expected to adhere--especially white males--if they wish to maintain their own racial standing as members of these two privileged 'white' groups and assert their negotiable right to privileged resource access.

Princple V. Collectively, the 'white' and/or 'whitened' members of this racially privileged global population tend to bolster their shared political intent to impose patterns of restricted resource access on racially subordinant populations, and aim to preserve their presumably non-negotiable right to prescribe, and even dictate, lessor resource 6PM Coupon Code access rights for certain upwardly mobile members of the 'non-white' population whose internalized racism, reliable complicity, and carefully scrutinized willingness to cooperate with racial dominates is always required and rewarded.

Have you ever seen the film white chicks? By all definitions of racism, that film is far far worse and more offensive than someone blacking up as their favorite footballer, apparently with their permission. However, as it is a comedy Hollywood film it is deemed to be acceptable.
I haven't seen it, sorry. What is it that is racist about this film?
 
Nothing useful to add beyond I also don't think this is racist. Very stupid though.
 
Heres a quick video that everyone should watch. Ever heard of the Frankfurt school, critical theory, cultural marxism etc? The Frankfurt school set up by communists designed to attack capitalist countries from within, like a virus. Basically they couldn't win the economic battle so they turned to culture. The basic principle behind their masterplan was divide the population into groups and make every one of those groups feel oppressed (except for white males of course).

So they basically thought groups to hate. Young girls became angry feminists, blacks became angry blacks, whites hate themselves for "their" past and feel guilty about everything, theres angry gay groups, angry lesbians, Muslims are angry and hate the west, sexual freedom was oppressed, everything and everyone was oppressed (except white males).

And now we have you, j'nuh, who is "concerned" that some of us are not joining in the anger about a costume.
Ignoring your conspiracy theory, I do have a question about your second paragraph.

Just so I understand correctly, you believe that there shouldn't be angry gay/black/muslim/female/whatever groups, and that white folk shouldn't take blame for any of the world's injustices?
 
.Although I'm more concerned about the people excusing what he did on here, at this point. :huh:

Gotta say I'm impressed(read as actually I'm dismayed) that so many people, including someone who wrote his dissertation on racism, define it as simply being aggressive towards someone based on skin colour/religion.

Shocking.
 
Gotta say I'm impressed(read as actually I'm dismayed) that so many people, including someone who wrote his dissertation on racism, define it as simply being aggressive towards someone based on skin colour/religion.

Shocking.

Not quite that simple, but thanks for sharing your fantastic insight into nothing we actually said. Oh and Islamophobia isn't strictly racism, but that's another debate. You could argue neither is Xenophobia, so well done to about 30% of your post being based on anything atually correct, like your spelling etc. C-

@j'nuh, i'll get back to your post a little later i'm off to do the 12 pubs of Christmas, Worlds end style haha
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top