Bloody Foreigners

I know I promised one thing, but I could hardly leave this alone...

Part 1 - the Tackle

It's in a grey area. It could be yellow, it could be red. But jumping at that distance, with force, on Oscar's knee is dangerous and reckless. People are confused because it doesn't fit the red card schema (two footed lunge = automatic straight red). With his weight coming down on Oscar's leg, that could've been a serious injury if his leg was on the floor. There's definite grounds for giving a red. And if you watch in real time - as you can here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcbs6dqQWQA - it looks bad, and as Jamie Carragher said, if you think your team-mate has been done, you're right to be pissed. He strangely went on to say two highly contentious things - 1) most of those Chelsea players "couldn't see it" (they're all looking at the incident, which in real-time does not look good), and 2) the Chelsea player reaction was "disgraceful". 

Part 2 - the Reaction to the Reaction

This is all from one article - read it here http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31845015 - Carragher and McNulty both go with "disgraceful", as well as "shocking" and "ignominious". Lawro said the tackle was "not that bad" (please watch it again). Now imagine that Oscar's leg is flat on the floor, and Zlatan ends his career by basically jumping on his knee - then what would the reaction have been? "Justified", I imagine. Souness, meanwhile, bafflingly working as a pundit for Sky, said "PSG had to put up with stuff" that he finds "really, really unappealing", and that it is not "the British way of doing things" (that is a precise quote)...

Part 3 - Most of Us Don't Know What Racism Is

Let's just examine the statement...

THAT IS NOT THE BRITISH WAY OF DOING THINGS

Now, he's talking about the use of nefarious tactics. He's talking about feigning injury. He's talking, generally, under the umbrella of dishonesty. So, the statement basically boils down to...

BLOODY DISHONEST FOREIGNERS

Which is basically a UKIP slogan. He finds this sort of thing "really, really unpleasant", whereas this sort of thing is just part of the game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVgxYa3mlo - now trying to get someone sent off, that's "really, really unpleasant" - but deliberately trying to end someone's career? That's just fine is it? So there's the hypocracy, but there's the also the casual racism. It's a classic right wing line. There is a British way of doing things which is being soiled by these bloody foreigners coming in bringing their dishonest ways. Until they came along everyone used to rip the shit out of stadiums and kick each others knees off, which was just lovely. There is how we do it, and how they do it. They are different. They are an outgroup, and the outgroup warrants this label. We are different, distinct, we are not all just humans. 

Part 4 - Words, Actions and Opinions

Most racism is implicit, as it is here. There's a lot of use of racist language, and you do come across overtly racist sentiments, but there's a lot that bypasses our conscious awareness. The issue is with attitudes as much as behaviours. There is an implication in Souness' statement that would read in a Daily Mail article as foreigners being a virus blighting our once great nation with its noble traditions. It wilfully ignores basically all of the evidence. He is saying that British footballers were more honest in the pre-contamination era. There is no way of dressing his words up to give them even the slightest air of legitimacy. When you group people in the way he is (British = honest, non-British = dishonest) you engage in harmful (and shameful) categorisation. The worst thing about it is that there has been absolutely no outrage. If he'd have said one word wrong, outrage would've ensued. Inserting one racist word in there, and he wouldn't have a job. However, couching a racist statement in ambiguous terms means that there is no outrage, no obviously offended party. It bypasses our intuition of what constitutes a racist statement, and essentially smuggles through the essence - the ideology. We should be more vigilant, and we should have a problem with this.
Part 5 - The Essentials of Prejudice
Do you feel that this is an acceptable statement?
I PREFER GAY PEOPLE, THEY HAVE A MUCH BETTER SENSE OF HUMOUR AND A GREAT TASTE IN FASHION
Hopefully you didn't say "absolutely" in answer to my question. I now cordially invite you to think about it for a moment. What that statement says is that people of alternate sexual preferences are different. You are saying that their sexual preference tells you more about them than just their sexual preference. It tells you what they're like as people. Just because it's a positive stereotype, doesn't make it remotely valid, and it does make it an example of a harmful and reductive method of categorising the world. You are saying that a sexual preference tells you really all you need to know about a person. It's the same as...
OH, HE'S GAY? I DIDN'T REALISE HE LIKED ABBA 
One statement is as unreasonable as the other. Some gay people will have a good sense of humour, some won't. Some will have a "great taste in fashion" - others will not. Treat their sexual preference as only informing you about their sexual preference. Equally, the fact that someone is from abroad does not mean you can label them "dishonest". Some people who are not from Britain are also dishonest, and some aren't. 

Anyway, back on with the scheduled programming...