Kelvin MacKenzie attacking Liverpool again

[fidelcastro]

I will say it again, I do not have to accept racism. Would you have said the same to MLK, Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks? (for clarity, I'm not comparing myself to them)

Edit - Fidel beat me to it

Like he knows who any of those people are!

[Greenmile]

OK.

I *think* the idea that McKenzie deliberately intended to be racist here is pigswill and codswollop of the highest order.

You *think* the article was deliberately racist.

Neither of us can prove our cases. Unless there is evidence of him confessing to your version of events it will be entirely down to his word.

But even if I was inclined to believe your *thoughts* on the matter I find your willingness to condemn the man out outright racism to be dangerous and worrying. Particularly as so many appear to be supportive of this stance.

Q. Why is it worrying for me?

A. It's worrying because it is essentalaly trial without evidence. You want him to be convicted of "Possible Racism". You are effectively accusing the man of committing thought crime.

OK, so I'd support him even if I suspected him of having a secret racist motivation - are my actions akin to supporting a racist?

A. No. I'm happy for people who are racist to receive social approbation. But if we're to go around publicly proclaiming people to be "racist" then we ought to have the dignity and sense to have evidence of the fact. Fair trials are a pretty fundamental human right. OK, so we're discussing the matter on an internet forum and not a court room but I rather believe that the civilised notion of fair trials should be adopted by civilised people no matter what the circumstances.

I hope that clarifies things fidel.

All the best and goodnight.

So you think he should be entitled to a "fair trial" but the only evidence you will accept is a signed confession? You do realise that most racists don't think they are racists, don't you?

Besides, we are judging him on "his word" - the words that were printed in a national "newspaper" where he called a man with Nigerian heritage a gorilla.

[KRBFC]

Does that also apply to managers who don't play "attractive" football?

No because I can change the style of play. It was all part of the plan, I'd sign up to this forum and build up a fanbase before submitting my managerial application. Call me delusional but I believe I could get that group of players playing better stuff than Yawn Dyche. I may lack experience in the role but I can easily see Dyches faults before him.

[martin_p]

Like he knows who any of those people are!

And if he doesn't they're irrelevant.

[Sidney1st]

Like he knows who any of those people are!

I'm sure they do know two out of 3, possibly all 3 of them.

[Sidney1st]

So you think he should be entitled to a "fair trial" but the only evidence you will accept is a signed confession? You do realise that most racists don't think they are racists, don't you?

Besides, we are judging him on "his word" - the words that were printed in a national "newspaper" where he called a man with Nigerian heritage a gorilla.

He's also released the statement since saying he wasn't aware of Barkley's Nigerian heritage.
Most people won't be aware of it either, because he's Caucasian, with Caucasian features.

If you gave the average person in the street a picture of Ross Barkley and asked them to describe him, before today they'd be likely to describe him as some white bloke in his 20's.

[Rowls]

So you think he should be entitled to a "fair trial" but the only evidence you will accept is a signed confession? You do realise that most racists don't think they are racists, don't you?

Besides, we are judging him on "his word" - the words that were printed in a national "newspaper" where he called a man with Nigerian heritage a gorilla.

This is so ignorant I shall not pass comment on it

I hope you see sense and apologise.

[KRBFC]

Try empathising with others. Don't worry, it doesn't mean you're gay.

Extremely weird how you keep mentioning sexuality. Does your family know?

[Greenmile]

I always swear at people who accuse me of racism or siding with racists. ALWAYS.

It doesn't happen that often because the bast majority of people (even those I disagree with vehemently) are decent people.

You have lowered yourself to the level of a racist.

If you knew ANYTHING about me as a person or my private life you would be embarrassed to kingdom come to even think about calling me a racist or even "siding with a racist".

If you saw somebody dishing out racist abuse maybe you'd tell them to eff off? That's what's happened here. You're the one dishing out crap and I'm the one who's told you to shut up with swear words.

You should apologise. And if you do I'll apologise for swearing.

I have never called you a racist and I'm happy to apologise if I gave that impression, but stand my my view that you are siding with a racist here. Your private life is irrelevant - I'm judging you on your statements here on this thread.

I need no apology from you for swearing, but you might want to think about apologising for most of your other statements on this thread.

[HelloHiGoodbye]

This is so ignorant I shall not pass comment on it

I hope you see sense and apologise.

Offended? Wanting an apology? You sure you're not left wing, Rowls?

[martin_p]

I love the notion of an Internet football forum having to give a 'fair trial' to a man who has made a living out of being nasty and unfair to people, peoples and religions, often causing significant emotional and long term distress. Be fair to Kelvin MacKenzie? Ha!! Live by the sword die by the sword mate!!

If he's been unfairly accused and it's caused him problems then tough ****.

[Bordeauxclaret]

No because I can change the style of play. It was all part of the plan, I'd sign up to this forum and build up a fanbase before submitting my managerial application. Call me delusional but I believe I could get that group of players playing better stuff than Yawn Dyche. I may lack experience in the role but I can easily see Dyches faults before him.

Your quivering bottom lip posts cheer everyone up after a poor result. Don't change.

[Bordeauxclaret]

He's also released the statement since saying he wasn't aware of Barkley's Nigerian heritage.
Most people won't be aware of it either, because he's Caucasian, with Caucasian features.

If you gave the average person in the street a picture of Ross Barkley and asked them to describe him, before today they'd be likely to describe him as some white bloke in his 20's.

The old 'sorry I'm just **** at my job excuse'. Worked for Brooks.

[Rowls]

I have never called you a racist and I'm happy to apologise if I gave that impression, but stand my my view that you are siding with a racist here. Your private life is irrelevant - I'm judging you on your statements here on this thread.

I need no apology from you for swearing, but you might want to think about apologising for most of your other statements on this thread.

You have not understood what I said.

I swore at you for accusing me for excusing and "siding" with a racist.

And why would anyone do that if they weren't a racist themselves? "I'm not a racist but I'm standing up for racist?" How does that work.

The fact is, you did not accuse me of racism but you may as well have done. You accused me of siding with a racist and that's enough for me.

Furthermore you don't have the sense our courtesy to avoid the ambiguity of whether I'm siding "with a racist" (your words) or siding with somebody you think is a racist, even though you have no proof.

[fidelcastro]

I know I said "fair play" on a previous post, Rowls, but after reading it again, please can you clarify this post of yours:

"OK, so I'd support him even if I suspected him of having a secret racist motivation - are my actions akin to supporting a racist?"

If that's not a typo, then yes you are supporting a racist.

[Greenmile]

He's also released the statement since saying he wasn't aware of Barkley's Nigerian heritage.
Most people won't be aware of it either, because he's Caucasian, with Caucasian features.

If you gave the average person in the street a picture of Ross Barkley and asked them to describe him, before today they'd be likely to describe him as some white bloke in his 20's.

He's supposed to be a journalist. He should have done so every basic research on his target before writing his hit piece.

Best case scenario if you believe his subsequent statement (and I don't) is that he's utterly incompetent at his job and should be fired anyway.

Edit - again, I've been beaten to the punch (this time by Bordeauxclaret). In my defence, I'm a very slow typist.

[Rowls]

I love the notion of an Internet football forum having to give a 'fair trial' to a man who has made a living out of being nasty and unfair to people, peoples and religions, often causing significant emotional and long term distress. Be fair to Kelvin MacKenzie? Ha!! Live by the sword die by the sword mate!!
If he's been unfairly accused and it's caused him problems then tough ****.

The personal distress McKenzie (which I imagine is very little) has nothing to do with it.

If you want to live in a society where accusations and witch-hunts are a mainstay of life then I suggest a life somewhere like Zimbabwe, Russia or one of several other crappy countries.

No, the internet does not have to enforce the kind of levels of proof the courts require (I thought I'd already made that point but maybe you missed it) but people who are eager for trials without evidence really ought to think of the consequences. Sorry to be so serious but that, to me, is a serious issue. I think of it as one of the bedrocks of our society.

So go ahead and say "I think he's a racist even though there's no proof." Be my guest martin.

Just don't imagine it's a good argument or one that will withstand any kind of scrutiny.

As for the stuff about him upsetting people - that was kinda part of his job.

You can say 'live by the sword die by the sword' all you like but all you're really doing is seizing the moral lowground.

[martin_p]

The fact is, you did not accuse me of racism but you may as well have done. You accused me of siding with a racist and that's enough for me.

You're doing that inference thing again. Why don't you just ask him what he meant?

[Greenmile]

You have not understood what I said.

I swore at you for accusing me for excusing and "siding" with a racist.

And why would anyone do that if they weren't a racist themselves? "I'm not a racist but I'm standing up for racist?" How does that work.

The fact is, you did not accuse me of racism but you may as well have done. You accused me of siding with a racist and that's enough for me.

Furthermore you don't have the sense our courtesy to avoid the ambiguity of whether I'm siding "with a racist" (your words) or siding with somebody you think is a racist, even though you have no proof.

Now then Rowls, do I really need to put a disclaimer at the end of each of my posts saying "this is my opinion" just for you? (does this sound familiar to you?)

My proof is the article he wrote. For me, comparing someone with Nigerian heritage to a gorilla is a racist act (apparently for apologists like yourself, it isn't - we may have to agree to disagree). Someone who commits racist acts is a racist.

Accusing you of siding with racists is not the same as accusing you of being a racist. Your motivations are a mystery to me but if I had to hazard a guess, it would be something to do with your unthinking dislike of any viewpoint that is vaguely left wing or liberal.

[Rowls]

I know I said "fair play" on a previous post, Rowls, but after reading it again, please can you clarify this post of yours:

"OK, so I'd support him even if I suspected him of having a secret racist motivation - are my actions akin to supporting a racist?"

If that's not a typo, then yes you are supporting a racist.

No.

NO NO NO!!!!

It does NOT mean that at all.

What it means is I would be supporting the right of a man who may or may not be a racist (even though perhaps I suspect he might be a racist) to be judged by standards superior to "well I think he might be a racist so therefore he IS a racist and let's condemn him". The universe certainly does not begin and end between my ears. That's just the place I interpret it.

What if he isn't a racist?
What is all of a sudden Britain started locking up people on the grounds that they "might" be racist?
What sort of country would that be?
What sort of people would do that?

There's a good reason why courts insist upon these kind of burdens.

[martin_p]

No, the internet does not have to enforce the kind of levels of proof the courts require (I thought I'd already made that point but maybe you missed it) but people who are eager for trials without evidence really ought to think of the consequences. Sorry to be so serious but that, to me, is a serious issue. I think of it as one of the bedrocks of our society.

And maybe you missed the ' ' round 'fair trial' (I thought it was obvious I wasn't being literal but maybe you missed it).

[dsr]

Here's a suggestion. For the purpose of this suggestion, it's irrelevant whether McKenzie was being racist or not; this is to do with the wider world of racism.

It's pretty clear that in most people's minds, especially that of the most strongly anti-racists, gorillas (and presumably other primates) are closely associated with black people. Not white people, because if for example Tony Adams had been accused of having stupid eyes like a gorilla - this of course is assuming Adams doesn't have a black ancestor that I have somehow missed - then there would be no accusation of racism. For that matter, if Adams had been accused of having eyes like a snow leopard, it wouldn't be racist; and presumably accusing (say) Ian Wright of having eyes like a snow leopard wouldn't be racist. The problem is that if you accuse a black man of having eyes like a gorilla, there is an instant link "black man" and "gorilla". It's built to many people's pysche - they hear someone refer to a gorilla when there's a black man in the room, and they link them.

This needs to change, frankly. We need to get away from this link. I know why the link appeared, it's because of racist behaviour chucking bananas at John Barnes and making jungle noises and all the rest of the vile nonsense. But sadly, the vile nonsense of racist football fans linking black men and primates has become an accepted link in well-meaning people's minds. We need to break the link. When we see a black man and a gorilla mentioned in the same sentence, we need to go back to the more old-fashioned blank surprise, "what are you on about" - let the racists know that they are not talking sense.

The point is, I suppose, that I'm one of those who didn't know that Barkley had a Nigerian grandfather. And that means I didn't realise that he was a different sort of person from say Tony Adams, who needs treating differently from Tony Adams because Adams doesn't have a Nigerian grandfather. The idea that Ross Barkley is a different sort of person from Tony Adams, just because he's got a black grandfather, worries me.

[martin_p]

No.

NO NO NO!!!!

It does NOT mean that at all.

What it means is I would be supporting the right of a man who may or may not be a racist (even though perhaps I suspect he might be a racist) to be judged by standards superior to "well I think he might be a racist so therefore he IS a racist and let's condemn him". The universe certainly does not begin and end between my ears. That's just the place I interpret it.

What if he isn't a racist?
What is all of a sudden Britain started locking up people on the grounds that they "might" be racist?
What sort of country would that be?
What sort of people would do that?

There's a good reason why courts insist upon these kind of burdens.

Don't forget, only Rowls is allowed to infer.

[Awayfromburnley]

I feel like I've walked into that barbers scene, where they are all arguing, from Coming to America.

My head hurts.

[Rowls]

Now then Rowls, do I really need to put a disclaimer at the end of each of my posts saying "this is my opinion" just for you? (does this sound familiar to you?)

You don't need to do that. But I think you'd do well to understand the ambiguity in your previous post.

My proof is the article he wrote. For me, comparing someone with Nigerian heritage to a gorilla is a racist act (apparently for apologists like yourself, it isn't - we may have to agree to disagree). Someone who commits racist acts is a racist.

You don't understand the difference between evidence and proof.

Accusing you of siding with racists is not the same as accusing you of being a racist. Your motivations are a mystery to me but if I had to hazard a guess, it would be something to do with your unthinking dislike of any viewpoint that is vaguely left wing or liberal.

I've already explained why I say it's very close to being the same thing and has the same effect.

And you also should start to acknowledge the difference between posting opinions and posting accusations.

You can have whatever opinion you want but you cannot post whatever accusation you want. That is what you really need to learn.

[Rowls]

Don't forget, only Rowls is allowed to infer.

There's nothing "inferred" in the post you've quoted martin. It's a logical argument.

I'd like to see you try and pick holes in it.

[Greenmile]

Unless one of the mods think I've crossed a line and ban me, I can post exactly what I want, and will continue to do so.

[HelloHiGoodbye]

Here's a suggestion. For the purpose of this suggestion, it's irrelevant whether McKenzie was being racist or not; this is to do with the wider world of racism.

It's pretty clear that in most people's minds, especially that of the most strongly anti-racists, gorillas (and presumably other primates) are closely associated with black people. Not white people, because if for example Tony Adams had been accused of having stupid eyes like a gorilla - this of course is assuming Adams doesn't have a black ancestor that I have somehow missed - then there would be no accusation of racism. For that matter, if Adams had been accused of having eyes like a snow leopard, it wouldn't be racist; and presumably accusing (say) Ian Wright of having eyes like a snow leopard wouldn't be racist. The problem is that if you accuse a black man of having eyes like a gorilla, there is an instant link "black man" and "gorilla". It's built to many people's pysche - they hear someone refer to a gorilla when there's a black man in the room, and they link them.

This needs to change, frankly. We need to get away from this link. I know why the link appeared, it's because of racist behaviour chucking bananas at John Barnes and making jungle noises and all the rest of the vile nonsense. But sadly, the vile nonsense of racist football fans linking black men and primates has become an accepted link in well-meaning people's minds. We need to break the link. When we see a black man and a gorilla mentioned in the same sentence, we need to go back to the more old-fashioned blank surprise, "what are you on about" - let the racists know that they are not talking sense.

The point is, I suppose, that I'm one of those who didn't know that Barkley had a Nigerian grandfather. And that means I didn't realise that he was a different sort of person from say Tony Adams, who needs treating differently from Tony Adams because Adams doesn't have a Nigerian grandfather. The idea that Ross Barkley is a different sort of person from Tony Adams, just because he's got a black grandfather, worries me.

Sorry - Tony Adams' eyes?

Marvin Sordell is often compared to a fish because of his eyes. The gorilla though is different. Racists have historically used the monkey as a negative comparison to black people so in the circumstance of this newspaper article, when comparing Barkley with an animal seemed arbitrary - it's suspicious that a gorilla was chosen. It might've been innocent. But it's The S*n. So I don't believe it was, at all.

[martin_p]

There's nothing "inferred" in the post you've quoted martin. It's a logical argument.

I'd like to see you try and pick holes in it.

Correct, the inference was in the post you were NO NO NOing to.

[Greenmile]

The fact is, you did not accuse me of racism but you may as well have done. You accused me of siding with a racist and that's enough for me.

Siding with a racist, much like accusing someone of racism, is not as bad as racism. I'm struggling to see how you don't get that.

Also, enough for you to do what? Have a paddy and swear at me on a messageboard? I think I'll live.

[Rowls]

Unless one of the mods think I've crossed a line and ban me, I can post exactly what I want, and will continue to do so.

Sure.

You can post whatever you want.

We can all do that.

But we do well to consider other people when posting. I am very abrasive when arguing but I would not post the kind of accusations you have posted. We'd also do well to consider what kind of legal considerations we ought to consider when posting on public forums.

The accusation that I am "siding with a racist" would stand a half decent chance of being found libellous.

[Greenmile]

Take me to court then. I suspect the evidence on this thread would be sufficient to acquit me of libel.

Edit - there is a faint possibility that Mackenzie himself could have a case against me, but I reckon he might be a bit busy over the next few days. Not writing for a national newspaper though, hopefully.

And that's me off to bed. Gnight.

[TVC15]

You don't half tangle yourself in knots Rowls - this might sound like a bit of a paradox but sometimes trying to be too clever is...well....a bit dumb !

[Rowls]

Correct, the inference was in the post you were NO NO NOing to.

Maybe you're using a different definition but I genuinely don't see it. I wrote that as implacably as I could after the "no no no" bit.

[Spiral]

As for the stuff about him upsetting people - that was kinda part of his job.

Being upset about the article: right or wrong?

I know where you're going with this, your only recourse is to create a distinction between an act of racism and the person carrying out the act. (Nonsense logic, but God bless you if you want to try). MacKenzie has since pleaded ignorance of Barkley's heritage, a de facto admission of the legitimacy of the claim against him? So was an intent to upset people through the use of dog-whistles part of his remit? Wait, does that make him a racist? Does that make his actions racist? It's his job to upset people, right? Racism upsets people, right? Are people right to be 'upset' about an article that might accidentally be construed as racist or are we wrong to be 'upset' about an article that wasn't intended to 'upset' people by using rhetoric that might, as per

As for the stuff about him upsetting people - that was kinda part of his job.

...'upset' people?

It's just, his appeal to ignorance doesn't reconcile with...

As for the stuff about him upsetting people - that was kinda part of his job.

...So either you're wrong or he's wrong. Pick one.

[Rowls]

You don't half tangle yourself in knots Rowls - this might sound like a bit of a paradox but sometimes trying to be too clever is...well....a bit dumb !

I sometimes do try myself in knots but not here TV15.

It's just basic reasoning as far as I'm concerned.

Take me to court then. I suspect the evidence on this thread would be sufficient to acquit me of libel.

I have neither time and inclination nor the money to be bothered. I doubt a victory would pay for it. Any right-minded judge would award such a snowflake a pittance in damages.

If you were a journalist and I were famous it would be different but if I were famous I would be tapping away having arguments here.

[Rowls]

Being upset about the article: right or wrong?

I know where you're going with this, your only recourse is to create a distinction between an act of racism and the person carrying out the act. (Nonsense logic, but God bless you if you want to try). MacKenzie has since pleaded ignorance of Barkley's heritage, a de facto admission of the legitimacy of the claim against him? So was an intent to upset people through the use of dog-whistles part of his remit? Wait, does that make him a racist? Does that make his actions racist? It's his job to upset people, right? Racism upsets people, right? Are people right to be 'upset' about an article that might accidentally be construed as racist or are we wrong to be 'upset' about an article that wasn't intended to 'upset' people by using rhetoric that might, as per

TV15 - THIS is what "tying yourself in knots" looks like.

There isn't any logic to his argument and it is based on false (or unprovable) assumptions.

[TVC15]

Mmmmm - not so sure Rowls.

Why spend any time or energy trying to defend a lowlife like McKenzie ?

I get the innocent until proven guilty / freedom of speech type argument - but come on let the scu-mbag defend himself. He does not deserve yours or anyone else's time

[Blackrod]

Havnt read what Barkley is supposed to have done and the journalist's comments don't seem great at all whether there was intended racism or not. I had no idea Barkley was of mixed race and I suspect many others wouldn't. The problem is nowadays people are looking for any kind of racist undertone. If someone is right wing it does not make them racist.

[Rowls]

Mmmmm - not so sure Rowls.

Why spend any time or energy trying to defend a lowlife like McKenzie ?

Because I think the accusation against him is utterly ludicrous. I happen to not have much problem with McKenzie. I see why other's do and that is their business.

To me, this one comes down to whether disliking somebody should mean treating them unfairly. If he is as abominable as some people claim then his detractors should be better able to castigate him on his actions rather than some perceived (or even imagined) slights. I think there's a case to be had against him over the years.

But this isn't it.

[Spiral]

TV15 - THIS is what "tying yourself in knots" looks like.

There isn't any logic to his argument and it is based on false (or unprovable) assumptions.

At least try. If my post is littered with legitimate logical fallacies, correct me. Show me where I'm wrong. I'll be wiser for it. Tell me that the argument, the assumption that 'racism upsets people' is fallacious. Go on.

[martin_p]

As for the stuff about him upsetting people - that was kinda part of his job.

You can say 'live by the sword die by the sword' all you like but all you're really doing is seizing the moral lowground.

Missed this. Can't believe that you dismiss the upset he has caused so glibly. It's part of his job!!! Oh that's alright then.

As for taking the moral lowground, it's probably the only thing that works against this sort of lowlife. Taking the high ground is exactly what McKenzie wants, he laps it up and carries on peddling his hate. Good on Joe Anderson for fighting dirty, it's getting results!

[Rowls]

At least try. If my post is littered with legitimate logical fallacies, correct me. Show me where I'm wrong. I'll be wiser for it. Tell me that the argument that 'racism upsets people' is fallacious. Go on.

Really, what you wrote is so poor it makes it difficult to dissect.

I could genuinely write a page of how badly you've posed the opening question, which is in itself phrased so incomprehensibly that I'm not sure what it means.

I'm genuinely sorry Spiral but I can't do what you're asking for here.

[Spiral]

At least try. I'll let you assume my intent. See how far semantics can take you this time.

You're wrong or he is. Pick one.

[Rowls]

Missed this. Can't believe that you dismiss the upset he has caused so glibly. It's part of his job!!! Oh that's alright then.

As for taking the moral lowground, it's probably the only thing that works against this sort of lowlife. Taking the high ground is exactly what McKenzie wants, he laps it up and carries on peddling his hate. Good on Joe Anderson for fighting dirty, it's getting results!

Maybe I should have been more specific here.

I did not intend to mean that he had carte blanche to insult people left right and centre simply because he was a powerful editor of the most popular newspaper in the country.

What I meant was that a lot of the newspaper stings and investigations helped expose corruption, law-breaking and hypocrisy and that performing these legitimate journalistic tasks would entail making himself unpopular with certain people.

The very subject matter of writing disparagingly about a man who has, apparently, been assaulted without provocation in a club is distasteful. He was (to my mind) also deliberately goading Liverpudlians in the article which is also in bad taste. Why would anyone even conceive of writing such an article? I cannot fathom it personally.

I'm not here to defend Kelvin McKenzie and intelligent people like yourself ought to recognise this. I'm here to defend the notion that people should not be labelled racist unless we actually know they are a racist. The fact that it's McKenzie who is on the sharp end of the stick here is of little importance to me.

[Rowls]

At least try. I'll let you assume my intent. See how far semantics can take you this time.

You're wrong or he is. Pick one.

But you see, I don't even understand this. I don't understand what you're trying to ask. This isn't about "semantics".

And if I have carte blanche to "assume your intent" I could "assume" anything. Absolutely anything!

That's kinda what I'm arguing against here, you realise. The idea that we should just go ahead and assume things just because we have a vague notion of them.

I'm sorry I can't respond any further. Really I am.

[dsr]

Sorry - Tony Adams' eyes?

Marvin Sordell is often compared to a fish because of his eyes. The gorilla though is different. Racists have historically used the monkey as a negative comparison to black people so in the circumstance of this newspaper article, when comparing Barkley with an animal seemed arbitrary - it's suspicious that a gorilla was chosen. It might've been innocent. But it's The S*n. So I don't believe it was, at all.

That's the point. The gorilla has become associated with black men, rather as the Union Jack was once associated with the BNP. We have fairly broken the automatic link between the Union Jack and the BNP; let's try and do the same for gorillas and black people.

If someone said about a white man that he was like a gorilla, it would be assumed he was big, muscly, slow. Of thought as well as of movement. Something like the people in dark glasses who accompany dodgy moneylenders. Race doesn't come into it. So let's all jump on to (or create) a bandwagon that says a black man can be compared with a gorilla without it necessarily being based on the colour of his skin. Which is, I believe, what Martin Luther King was aiming for.

[martin_p]

I'm not here to defend Kelvin McKenzie and intelligent people like yourself ought to recognise this. I'm here to defend the notion that people should not be labelled racist unless we actually know they are a racist. The fact that it's McKenzie who is on the sharp end of the stick here is of little importance to me.

Well I'm sure that if it's proved McKenzie isn't racist then Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson will apologise......in 27 years time.

[yTib]

is rowls really the champion of kelvin mackenzie?

or is kelvin mackenzie really the champion of rowls?

either way, both the type of guys that would NOT be invited to my party.

[Spiral]

That's the point. The gorilla has become associated with black men, rather as the Union Jack was once associated with the BNP. We have fairly broken the automatic link between the Union Jack and the BNP; let's try and do the same for gorillas and black people.

If someone said about a white man that he was like a gorilla, it would be assumed he was big, muscly, slow. Of thought as well as of movement. Something like the people in dark glasses who accompany dodgy moneylenders. Race doesn't come into it. So let's all jump on to (or create) a bandwagon that says a black man can be compared with a gorilla without it necessarily being based on the colour of his skin. Which is, I believe, what Martin Luther King was aiming for.

A rosy sentiment I can sympathise with but without acknowledgement of historical context or an acknowledgement that animalisation exists today, (as evidenced by this thread's very existence), is tantamount to putting your fingers in your ears singing 'la la la, nothing to see here'.

I'll re-link this article posted earlier.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conve ... 45322.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;