Yet another so-called controversy has erupted in the so-called beautiful game, this time TV pundit Alan Hansen has come under fire for using a racial euphemism.
Christopher Bates has reported on this non-incident together with an embedded video. The extent of brainwashing on race in Britain and the tyranny of the politically correct class is a wonder to behold. Overwhelmingly it is directed against whites, many of whom believe with more than a little justification that they are now second class citizens in their own country, but blacks and others have also been on the receiving end at times.
Last year, a black woman and a councillor, alluded to a political opponent as a coconut, and was dragged into court and fined for racial harassment. This is indeed a racial insult, not least to whites, but as the reader will see from the video, it was a very moderate response in a council debate. If she had been standing outside a synagogue in an angry crowd with a Molotov cocktail in her hand and shouted “Juden raus!” that would have been a different matter. In the current farce, it remains to be seen if Alan Hansen will be fired, fined or even executed for using what is an entirely proper if archaic word in a discussion that appears to have included elements of race.
Is this word coloured (colored to our American readership) really so outrageous? One person who clearly thinks so is football pundit Stan Collymore. Is this, one wonders, the same person as Stanley Collymore who recently accused Kate McCann and her husband of murdering their daughter? Hopefully not. Now, the word coloured.
In his ludicrous White Paper of February 1999 - the one with the pink cover - a certain Sir William Macpherson claimed the words “coloured” and “negro” no less “are now well known to be offensive”. This can be found in Volume I at page 20.
In Britain, the term Afro-Caribbean appears to have come to the fore, although Somalis never seem to use it, for some reason. There don't appear to be any other acceptable alternatives. So what is the solution? More to the point, what is the problem?
The reality is that neither are or should be, although the word Negro should be capitalised. Do these people ever learn any history?
The great Black Separatist leader Marcus Garvey founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association in 1914. In 1909, the NAACP was founded in America, and is still active today. And the CP in that acronym stands for? If a major American lobbying organisation - one that lobbies, ostensibly, on behalf of blacks - can use the word colored with total impunity, what is the problem with a British soccer pundit using it?
Indeed, if one is alluding specifically to race, how many valid alternatives are there?
In this context, one suspects that the proper word should have been non-white, meaning literally anyone who is not white; coloured or the (quite hideous) people of color could be used; coloured is understood universally to mean non-white (except in South Africa where it means something very specific).
For decades, the word Negro was considered not only perfectly acceptable but entirely proper, indeed it was not until a certain Malcolm X came along and began referring to “the so-called Negro” that American blacks decided to call themselves African-Americans (with the exception of Barack Obama, who as we all know is Irish).
The real problem, which is entirely contrived, is that a class of people, who are more red than black, have for decades been waging war on traditional Western values, which they associate with whiteness, something they quite obviously hate, including their own pink-white skins.
Although these traditional values may have been developed predominantly by the modern West, with a little help from the ancients of Greece and Rome, they are not in fact Western but universal. Anyone who is inclined to believe otherwise should read San Min Chu I, which in addition to being the title of the National Anthem of the Republic of Taiwan is the title of the magnum opus of Dr Sun Yat-Sen. Translated into English as The Three Principles Of The People, this was written by arguably the greatest of Chinese statesmen, a man who had immersed himself in Western values, and transplanting them to his native land adapted and improved upon them. According to Dr Sun, the people needed not only nationalism, democracy and livelihood but four basic rights, including the right of initiative and the right to recall. In Dr Sun's Weltanschauung, our leaders are technicians and nothing more; the true political power is to be divested in the people.
Clearly this is not the case in Britain nor in any of the so-called Western democracies where the petty tyrants who control such organisations as the CPS look increasingly for ways to terrify, bully or simply humiliate anyone who steps out of line, and racists are easy targets.
The political left are largely to blame for this by egging them on and creating all manner of panics and hysteria. Is calling someone a coconut or a football player using a racial expletive on the field - an expletive which apparently one else hears - really deserving of the word crime? Apparently so.
The obvious question is when will these tyrants be satisfied, if ever? The simple answer is when racism has been totally eliminated, and when we are all slaves. In other words, when the last white woman has passed child-bearing age, and when the thoroughly “anti-racist”, non-sexist, homophobia-free population of wage slaves are walking around with microchips in the backs of their necks.
Sound paranoid? In a country where the average city dweller is caught on CCTV three hundred times a day, and where a foreign government routinely snoops on our telecommunications, paranoid it ain't.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com