Chelsea Message Board
Ok so we came second in all but the FA Cup
Now the manager ,who was brought in on the whim of the owner has been sacked.
Has any other team constantly brought derision on itself with the amount of sacked managers inspite of it's strengthening in stature since the appointment of Glen Hoddle?
But with all this to debate why are their constant posts involving social comment more importantly leaning towards racist doctrine?
I believe in free speech and see no reason why peoples opinions cant be aired on websites catered for those purposes, but gentlemen this is a site concerned with football and directly Chelsea Football Club
For the sake of Football and Chelsea
I see you are enjoying the too's and fro's of conversation with Ian, however one point you make in the last post can be countered.
In the last two/three years, hundreds of thousands of people looking for work came to the UK. In the last six months however, tens of thousands have now returned to their own countries. Why? you may ask.
1. The cost of living here far outweighs the 'minimum wage' most of them were getting, making life here in some cases harder than it was in their own country.
2. With so many having left their country to find work here, the employment situation back in their home countries has risen dramatically. Wages offered are better, and their are of course far more jobs to be had.
What can we deduce? Life has a way of balancing the books in the long term for one.
First of all I would like to thank the posters who replied (Bob and Ironistic) for engaging in the discussion without any abuse - that said I have come to respect these posters on the Yahoo forums.
In particular I wanted to draw attention to Bob's comments which really illuminate some of the points I raised:
"It was the cynical use of the possibility of prejudice to gain an advantage in a mainly white, "christian" society. Everyone seemed to be anti white when it came to their own advancement in society. That is to get jobs, benefits, housing and social care".
Viewing this assertion (which I believe to be true)we have three primary explainations.
1. Non whites are inherently opportunistic and seek any gain without moral reference - (I find this ridiculous), or for some are genetically deficient - (again ridiculous).
2. The abuse of the welfare system and the overuse (manipulative) wielding of the discrimination card, is the logical expression of an inability to compete for resources in an overly competitive society, which when examined properly displays income levels (and subsequent abuses) as the primary motivators- rather than race.
3. The effects of the above represent the inability of society for the adequate provision of need, and thus do not transcend race, but rather explain its position within the class structure. When societal dysfunction is examined, the significant variable is [almost] exclusively class, and the subsequent competition the lower income spectrum entails. If a true examination of the effects of race on british society were undertaken it would reveal the political inconsistancy of widening the state system to the regional level (EU) without assuring universal structures at the regional level - this is in effect the classic 'one foot in - one foot out' problem.
Personally I am in favour of one of two things.
1. A return to the sovereign state system, in which immigration and asylum are measured to nations capacity.
2. the complete embrace of the regional system, in which the resources of all regional states are pooled, and used to effectively meet (and better provide) for all aspects of social wellbeing. Thus it would not matter if a concentration of immigrants settled in a particular state, as the resources of the region would be employed in meeting their needs. Of course the likelihood of that happening would reduce, as shared resources (and eventually life quality) at the regional level, would level the incentive to resettle in any particular state.
The second option is the more appealing ideological option, but remains politically, socially and economically (not to mention the defense department) unviable to me. Thus I see the reinstatement of the nation state as prefferable. On this I stand to be persuaded - I am open to any workable suggestion to overcome the social/political problems now being experienced, and would welcome them.
Importantly, well done to Chelsea for competing effectively one three fronts this year - you made a memorable contribution to a fantastic year in the EPL.
This has been a facinating thread for the neutral (liverpool fan) on these boards, but seeing as the topic is not football or chelsea related (the point in question for some) I feel it is an open discussion I am comfortable contributing to. As before with my previous posts - I will be respectful to all, and expect the same back please.
A couple of things that I have picked up on throughout the debate. Crime statistics and their relation to race.Whilst as has been mentioned certain crime statistics do appear to have increased - knife and gun crime in particular, the picture is often misleading. A sociological examination of the National crime Survey reveals that significant levels of crime have dropped across the board. The oft repeated claim that society used to be safer etc, is in reality a claim that it used to be safer in SOME ways, but far more dangerous in others. For example the statistics for previous decades are massively distorted by the type of crimes that went unreported, police treatment of domestic abuse right up to the eighties was that domestic affairs were private matters. IF domestic violence had been reported and recorded (and then prosecuted) a massive swelling of crime figures for past (golden?) generations would occur, and in all likelihood the same prison crises we are experiencing now would have occured. In sum the increase in what is defined as a crime, what is investigated, what is prosecuted and what is reported distort the statistics to indicate that we are now living in a crime ridden society, when in reality we are living in a society where the type rather than the incidence has moved.
Secondly, a far more accurate indicator of crime is class rather than race. In all areas crime is concentrated at lower income levels. Of course there is a discussion about whether income indicates class (I agree it does not accurately) or indeed if there is such a thing as class. The central question is, why do we see a larger propensity towards crime at lower income levels? If we are to accept the causes are need, lack of resources, opportunity, education etc, then the general trend of people of other [than white] race in the lower income levels translates as an class issue towards crime, rather than a race issue. Perhaps more questions should be asked about why non white individuals are in the majority grouped in the lower income levels?
However where I feel Mr Merries does have a point, is that the over representation of non whites in the lower income levels, cannot [exclusively] be attributed to racial prejudice. What is becoming more apparent to scholars in the field, is that the ability of the host nation to accomodate a significant multi-cultural population is being tested. The perception of threat or competition for resources natives develop increases division at the end of the social spectrum where the effects are most accute - the lower income levels. The overall effect is racial division (often along invisible lines) and the much reported ghetto-isation of society.
Fundamentally as Robert Cooper has stated the processess of globalisation have seriously erroded the structure of the nation state (established within the Peace of Westphallia), creating a situation in which society (rightly) uphold the ideals of inclusion and multi-culturalism, without necessarily possesing the structures and means to provide for those ideals. Europe in particular is now at a particularly difficult stage of (post - post)modernity, in which the idealistic and moral principles are not yet matched by the political or societal maturity required for their safe implementation.
I am NOT dcnutz, I am NOT "non-white" and I stand by my statement, when someone refers to another as "monkey" or "wog" they mean a "black" person. If you are going to call/say/write/refer a black person anything other than black then, IN MY OPINION IT IS RACIST, especially when you write "WOG" as bertie did.
Just curious, with all the stabbings that has occured within the past 12months how many were done by "Blacks" ( for you racists: "wogs")?
- View More Messages