Hockey Fans Thrown Out for "Racism"

[USA!USA!]

look at all these soft pussies having a meltdown over this .. I thought whites were the snowflakes .. no one is a bigger snowflake than blacks and minorities .. y'all get offended by anything .. soft as marshmallows

No one is having a meltdown - if anything the people having the meltdown are folks like you screaming "snowflakes" because they can't get away with racist comments anymore.

 

[jamel]

So apparently during NXT fans were yelling "happy ending" and "pearl harbor" at Kairi Sane.

Be nice if they got snatched up by some of the talent and dealt with Joe Pesci style.​

 

[TheGreatA]

So racially abusing black players, who have nothing to do with the westerners "starting to moralize" over monkey chants, is OK because it's out of spite?

I don't think that any reasonable person, that genuinely isn't racist, would be racist to an innocent person just to prove a point.

It might come off as a shock to some people, but in many countries of the world, people generally don't see stereotyping as that big of a deal. Heck, people even take enjoyment in these stereotypes.

When America attempts to inject its own narrative about "racism" on countries that don't really have a "racial past" (comparable to their own), it's just seen as another attempt by the West to push their agenda, rather than some sort of a honest attempt to push racial equality around the world. Because in reality, the former is what it is. "Equality", "freedom", "solidarity", etc. have become alternative words for pro-American lobbyist agenda, all a part of the same package that has been pushed throughout the world to further American interests in the name of "liberty". Often by bombing the shit out of countries.

That's the way it is and it's not going to change, from the looks of it.

Sometimes you will see crude things such as people adopting American "taboos" (N-word, "monkey", etc.) to piss off Americans, and to proclaim their sovereignty from American influence.

Just another example of why you don't ever really want to create "taboos" strongly associated with a culture. Especially if you're as influential and divisive as America. Those taboos will be adopted by people that oppose your culture, not because those people are necessarily racist, but because those words have become a statement against Americanism.

An Eastern European person, for example, doesn't know how "offensive" those words might be to people of African heritage, and quite frankly, do not care. It's not like people take an effort to prevent themselves from sterotyping Russians, Slavs, etc. either, so why would they care?

 

[KantoTerror]

Meh...fans deserve it. There's no place for that in sport...

 

[panamaican]

I'm well-aware that race and gender are powder kegs these days, but come on. However you slice this one, getting worked up over the shit that sports fans say in the stands is beyond silly.

I have to disagree with this. We all know how the crowd can unexpectedly escalate things when left unchecked. Sometimes stamping out certain behavior before it escalates is the most prudent thing.

It doesn't appear that any of us were there so we don't know how the surrounding crowd was responding. Was it touching off a powder keg? Were other people in the crowd starting to get offended or starting to join in? Were the players on the ice getting pissed off about the treatment of their teammate?

I think sporting arenas have been more cautious with this type of thing since the NBA's "Malice in the Palace" Detroit Pistons brawl.

 

[KantoTerror]

So apparently during NXT fans were yelling "happy ending" and "pearl harbor" at Kairi Sane.

Be nice if they got snatched up by some of the talent and dealt with Joe Pesci style.​

Well she does look like a "happy ending"....

 

[BudKing8806]

I expected more from someone with the name Gandhi.

 

[USA!USA!]

It might come off as a shock to some people, but in many countries of the world, people generally don't see stereotyping as that big of a deal. Heck, people even take enjoyment in these stereotypes.

When America attempts to inject its own narrative about "racism" on countries that don't really have a "racial past" (comparable to their own), it's just seen as another attempt by the West to push their agenda, rather than some sort of a honest attempt to push racial equality around the world. Because in reality, that's what it is. "Equality", "freedom", "solidarity", etc. have become alternative words for pro-American lobbyist agenda.

That's the way it is and it's not going to change, from the looks of it.

I am not knocking what you are saying because I think you are more informing than saying that is your opinion.

I just don't understand how wanting to treat people decently and equal is some kind of "agenda" - I think most rational folks think that is just good behavior.. but like you said, some cultures are just different I suppose.

 

[jamel]

Well she does look like a "happy ending"....

That's what she should call that wreckless ass elbow drop she does.
It's almost like gravity has it out specifically for her.

 

[Gandhi]

I expected more from someone with the name Gandhi.

I can only work with what I’m given. On the bright side, you are performing as expected.

Also.............

 

[TheGreatA]

I am not knocking what you are saying because I think you are more informing than saying that is your opinion.

I just don't understand how wanting to treat people decently and equal is some kind of "agenda" - I think most rational folks think that is just good behavior.. but like you said, some cultures are just different I suppose.

It becomes an agenda when "treating people decently and equal" comes to be seen as distinctly an American "thing". As if they possess the exclusive rights to determine right and wrong, when it comes to treating people decently.

To some dude from a country with no real "racial past" whatsoever, where racism is not seen as a "thing" to be aware of, he looks at a situation like this from the perspective of:

A. A lot of black people play basketball and are good at it
B. Fewer black players play hockey at such a high level

The conclusion that they might come to, is that it would be a good way to heckle the black person by telling them to "go play basketball". The same way that you might heckle a white guy in basketball (by the old adage of "white men can't jump", or by telling them to go play hockey, or whatever) and so forth.

The difference is that in America black people have a distinct racially oppressed past which has made them more defensive of being stereotyped based on their race as a group, than people might be in others countries. The weight of the insult there, is greater than it is in other countries. A Slav in Russia, an Asian in China, a Finn in Finland, doesn't really care much about being stereotyped, and might actually take pride in that fact. Certainly in Finland, they would, because it means that people in other countries actually care enough about them to make up stereotypes.

A racial or ethnic stereotype in many countries might be taken as a source of pride (for example being seen as good at basketball would definitely be seen as a thing to take pride in), so not everybody really "gets" why you should be so offended about them. But from the American perspective it is more understandable. People are just a lot more defensive because there was legitimate racial oppression and belittlement going on, for a while. Although not so much for past several decades.

 

[Clear Winner]

It might come off as a shock to some people, but in many countries of the world, people generally don't see stereotyping as that big of a deal. Heck, people even take enjoyment in these stereotypes.

When America attempts to inject its own narrative about "racism" on countries that don't really have a "racial past" (comparable to their own), it's just seen as another attempt by the West to push their agenda, rather than some sort of a honest attempt to push racial equality around the world. Because in reality, the former is what it is. "Equality", "freedom", "solidarity", etc. have become alternative words for pro-American lobbyist agenda, all a part of the same package that has been pushed throughout the world to further American interests in the name of "liberty". Often by bombing the shit out of countries.

That's the way it is and it's not going to change, from the looks of it.

Sometimes you will see crude things such as people adopting American "taboos" (N-word, "monkey", etc.) to piss off Americans, and to proclaim their sovereignty from American influence.

Just another example of why you don't ever really want to create "taboos" strongly associated with a culture. Especially if you're as influential and divisive as America. Those taboos will be adopted by people that oppose your culture, not because those people are necessarily racist, but because those words have become a statement against Americanism.

An Eastern European person, for example, doesn't know how "offensive" those words might be to people of African heritage, and quite frankly, do not care. It's not like people take an effort to prevent themselves from sterotyping Russians, Slavs, etc. either, so why would they care?

You write intelligently enough to see why everything you're saying id fucked up on many levels.

 

[Bullitt68]

I am a Chicagoan and a Blackhawks fan too, bud - and I was extremely embarrassed by this behavior.

I am all for shit talking - but we can do better than to shit talk about someone's skin color.

No arguments there. Even when I played hockey, I was never the shit talking type. But I totally get it and have no problems with it.

Broadly speaking, lines are definitely worth drawing and discriminations absolutely can and should be made when it comes to judging behavior. But if such judgments fail to take the context into consideration then they are irresponsible and likely ideologically motivated. For example, when I was a kid, it was common practice while watching games - and my team even did this once at a college hockey game we got to go to while we were playing in a tournament in Boston - to start a goalie chant that went along the lines of chanting the goalie's last name twice and then shouting, "You suck dick, you suck dick bitch!" That doesn't mean that we were all misogynists who hated women and who thought rape was awesome (or homophobes, or whatever else one may infer), nor does it mean that we all went to school the next day and chanted in class about how our bitch teachers suck dick.

One of the best - and most useful - things about sports is that it's cathartic. You can get out that aggression and channel it in ways that don't have harmful societal effects. If we bottle all of this shit up and clamp down on what it's ok to do and say everywhere, all the time, with no regard for context, it's not like it won't still find its way out at some point somewhere. It just won't be channeled. And that's when there'll be real problems.

Let 'em bang and talk shit, bro.

Legislate? Goodness no. But it seems to me like some jabronis were just ejected from a game.

I didn't mean legislate in the law-/policy-establishing sense. I just meant devote concerted and explicit attention to it as if it's a huge issue that needs combating. However, unless I read the OP wrong (USA!USA!, please correct me if I'm wrong), it's actually not just some jabronis getting ejected from a game: It's some jabronis getting ejected from a game and banned from the arena for all future games for the rest of their lives.

I don't care how PC you are, I don't care how much of a warrior for social justice you are, there's no way anyone in their right mind can think that's justifiable.

We all know how the crowd can unexpectedly escalate things when left unchecked. Sometimes stamping out certain behavior before it escalates is the most prudent thing.

I'll grant you that I've been living in Wales for the last few years on a PhD scholarship and have only managed to go to a few Hawks games in that time period, so it's possible that I'm unaware of the depths to which the pool of humanity in Chicago has sunk, but unless I'm overestimating the current caliber of crowd, I'm having an extremely difficult time working out how a couple of hometown schmoes giving an athlete from the opposing team a hard time - and, all things considered, it wasn't even that hard of a time - can "escalate" to anything as apocalyptic as what you'd have to be imagining to think that throwing them out and banning them from the arena for the rest of their lives is the "most prudent thing" to do.

I just don't understand how wanting to treat people decently and equal is some kind of "agenda" - I think most rational folks think that is just good behavior.. but like you said, some cultures are just different I suppose.

I'll let @TheGreatA elaborate on this issue from his perspective. From my perspective, this post makes me think of two things.

First, as I was discussing earlier, context is king here. Painting in such broad strokes would, if taken to its logical conclusion, preclude the very existence of hockey. Or do you think "most rational folks" think that smashing into people and getting into fights over who is doing better at putting a tiny round rubber disc into a net is "good behavior"?

Second, the "agenda" part comes in when one gets the sense that everyone and everything is subject to the PC police and we can't even just go to a fucking hockey game to let off some steam without having to worry about who we may potentially offend.

 

[USA!USA!]

No arguments there. Even when I played hockey, I was never the shit talking type. But I totally get it and have no problems with it.

Broadly speaking, lines are definitely worth drawing and discriminations absolutely can and should be made when it comes to judging behavior. But if such judgments fail to take the context into consideration then they are irresponsible and likely ideologically motivated. For example, when I was a kid, it was common practice while watching games - and my team even did this once at a college hockey game we got to go to while we were playing in a tournament in Boston - to start a goalie chant that went along the lines of chanting the goalie's last name twice and then shouting, "You suck dick, you suck dick bitch!" That doesn't mean that we were all misogynists who hated women and who thought rape was awesome (or homophobes, or whatever else one may infer), nor does it mean that we all went to school the next day and chanted in class about how our bitch teachers suck dick.

One of the best - and most useful - things about sports is that it's cathartic. You can get out that aggression and channel it in ways that don't have harmful societal effects. If we bottle all of this shit up and clamp down on what it's ok to do and say everywhere, all the time, with no regard for context, it's not like it won't still find its way out at some point somewhere. It just won't be channeled. And that's when there'll be real problems.

Let 'em bang and talk shit, bro.

I'll let @TheGreatA elaborate on this issue from his perspective. From my perspective, this post makes me think of two things.

First, as I was discussing earlier, context is king here. Painting in such broad strokes would, if taken to its logical conclusion, preclude the very existence of hockey. Or do you think "most rational folks" think that smashing into people and getting into fights over who is doing better at putting a tiny round rubber disc into a net is "good behavior"?

Second, the "agenda" part comes in when one gets the sense that everyone and everything is subject to the PC police and we can't even just go to a fucking hockey game to let off some steam without having to worry about who we may potentially offend.

Man, I am going to be honest.. some of these points are pretty absurd.

So basically you are saying "why even play hockey if we are going to be held to the standard of not chanting racial stereotypes?"

People can't let off steam without bringing up another person's race and skin color? Huh? You are acting like it's a human urge to just let stereotypes and racist chants fly because it's cathartic.

I think instead of just saying "that's the way things are" - you should maybe think about upping your standards for what is acceptable and what standards people should hold for their behavior.

I am totally all for shit talking and taunting - but let's keep it about hockey and not a black person's skin color.

 

[panamaican]

I'll grant you that I've been living in Wales for the last few years on a PhD scholarship and have only managed to go to a few Hawks games in that time period, so it's possible that I'm unaware of the depths to which the pool of humanity in Chicago has sunk, but unless I'm overestimating the current caliber of crowd, I'm having an extremely difficult time working out how a couple of hometown schmoes giving an athlete from the opposing team a hard time - and, all things considered, it wasn't even that hard of a time - can "escalate" to anything as apocalyptic as what you'd have to be imagining to think that throwing them out and banning them from the arena for the rest of their lives is the "most prudent thing" to do.

Which is why the rest of my post referenced that, since none of us were there, none of us have a read on the crowd or the attitude of the other players or anything. So, it's somewhat superficial to just say the venue overreacted without those types of details.

I also referenced the Detroit Pistons brawl where random taunting escalated into a full on melee and subsequent litigation. Venues have learned from that. Control your bad actors early.

It's odd to say that you can't imagine something escalating when you're living in Europe where soccer matches escalating into full on brawls isn't unusual. They don't step in when that happens? I vaguely recall reading about people getting arrested in some of those situations.

 

[TheGreatA]

You write intelligently enough to see why everything you're saying id fucked up on many levels.

The point is that all countries have a distinct history and Americans attempting to moralize and judge other countries through the scope of their own history, is an attempt that is bound for failure, because it does not take the unique and distinct historical background of other countries into account.

Let's take Russia for example. They never enslaved African people, they didn't take part in imperialism or colonialism, in fact, they were often the targets of invasions and lost tens of millions of people in wars, starvation, disease as recently as only 70 years ago. They've, for the most part, been dirt poor and never possessed the American "luxuries" until perhaps the more recent times.

A Russian, as an example (although there are many such examples, not just Russians) is just never going to give much of a damn about the American black person's plights, and how offensive it might be to them that a black person feels racially belittled by being stereotyped as a basketball player. That's just how it is. They do not feel the "weight" of a black person's oppression at all. Not in the least. Black people's oppression in America doesn't even register on the radar, compared to what they've felt historically, even in more recent times.

I do not frankly care, either, because my parents and grand-parents were also dirt poor, with very few American luxuries, and were driven off from their homelands by Soviet invasions, dying from war or back-breaking work on the fields. Yet nobody really thinks that they should be "racially or ethnically considerate" when it comes to Finnish people (who resided under foreign dominion, largely as serfs, for centuries). Nor should they be.

That some people were being "ethnically considerate" with me, would only speak of my own fragility of being able to come to terms about my lack of power over others. It would mean that I operate from a position of weakness, rather than strength, so I definitely don't want any of such considerations. I prefer people to think that I operate from such an unquestionable and unshakeable position of strength, that there is nothing that anyone can say about my "Finnish-ness" that would offend me.

 

[USA!USA!]

The point is that all countries have a distinct history and Americans attempting to moralize and judge other countries through the scope of their own history, is an attempt that is bound for failure, because it does not take the unique and distinct historical background of other countries into account.

Let's take Russia for example. They never enslaved African people, they didn't take part in imperialism or colonialism, in fact, they were often the targets of invasions and lost tens of millions of people in wars, starvation, disease as recently as only 70 years ago. They've, for the most part, been dirt poor and never possessed the American "luxuries" until perhaps the more recent times.

A Russian, as an example (although there are many such examples, not just Russians) is just never going to give much of a damn about the American black person's plights, and how offensive it might be to them that a black person feels racially belittled by being stereotyped as a basketball player. That's just how it is. They do not feel the "weight" of a black person's oppression at all. Not in the least. Black people's oppression in America doesn't even register on the radar, compared to what they've felt historically, even in more recent times.

I do not frankly care, either, because my parents and grand-parents were also dirt poor, with very few American luxuries, and were driven off from their homelands by Soviet invasions. Yet nobody really thinks that they should be "racially or ethnically considerate" when it comes to Finnish people (who resided under foreign dominion, largely as serfs, for centuries). Nor should they be.

That some people were being "ethnically considerate" with me, would only speak of my own fragility of being able to come to terms about my lack of power over others. It would mean that I operate from a position of weakness, rather than strength, so I definitely don't want any of such considerations. I prefer people to think that I operate from such an unquestionable and unshakeable position of strength, that there is nothing that anyone can say about my "Finnish-ness" that would offend me.

I would argue you don't have to know much history about someone's cultural plight to agree treating people equally and decently is a universally good, humane thing.

 

[Clear Winner]

The point is that all countries have a distinct history and Americans attempting to moralize and judge other countries through the scope of their own history, is an attempt that is bound for failure, because it does not take the unique and distinct historical background of other countries into account.

Let's take Russia for example. They never enslaved African people, they didn't take part in imperialism or colonialism, in fact, they were often the targets of invasions and lost tens of millions of people in wars, starvation, disease as recently as only 70 years ago. They've, for the most part, been dirt poor and never possessed the American "luxuries" until perhaps the more recent times.

A Russian, as an example (although there are many such examples, not just Russians) is just never going to give much of a damn about the American black person's plights, and how offensive it might be to them that a black person feels racially belittled by being stereotyped as a basketball player. That's just how it is. They do not feel the "weight" of a black person's oppression at all. Not in the least. Black people's oppression in America doesn't even register on the radar, compared to what they've felt historically, even in more recent times.

I do not frankly care, either, because my parents and grand-parents were also dirt poor, with very few American luxuries, and were driven off from their homelands by Soviet invasions. Yet nobody really thinks that they should be "racially or ethnically considerate" when it comes to Finnish people (who resided under foreign dominion, largely as serfs, for centuries). Nor should they be.

That some people were being "ethnically considerate" with me, would only speak of my own fragility of being able to come to terms about my lack of power over others. It would mean that I operate from a position of weakness, rather than strength, so I definitely don't want any of such considerations. I prefer people to think that I operate from such an unquestionable and unshakeable position of strength, that there is nothing that anyone can say about my "Finnish-ness" that would offend me.

There's a big difference between "ethnically considerate" and outright racist.

I'm not referring to a basketball chant at a hockey game, I was initially talking about overtly racist football fans doing monkey chants at black players.

For example, this game where England U21s black players had stones and seats thrown at them for having the audacity to play football in another country:

 

[TheGreatA]

I would argue you don't have to know much history about someone's cultural plight to agree treating people equally and decently is a universally good, humane thing.

What I'm saying is that Americans do not possess an exclusive understanding on what treating other people "equally and decently" means.

There's a big difference between "ethnically considerate" and outright racist.

I'm not referring to a basketball chant at a hockey game, I was initially talking about overtly racist football fans doing monkey chants at black players.

For example, this game where England U21s black players had stones and seats thrown at them for having the audacity to play football in another country:

Sure, there are some outright racist fuckers in the world. But from what I've observed in recent times, a large part of "racial offenses" result from a lack of "ethnic considerations" and a misunderstanding of what that might amount to, rather than outright, straight-up, unadulterated and unapologetic racism directed at somebody.

I think we need to be able to draw a line between Serb psycho hooligans yelling "monkey" and throwing stones, to some dude telling a black player to go play basketball. The former is very obviously an act of hostile racism while the latter is more of a lack of "ethnic consideration".

I'm of the belief that "ethnic considerations" towards others shouldn't really be a thing, because it actually takes away some of the weight from acts of legitimate racism. If we are too prickly about our ethnicity, can't find any humor in stereotypes, and when it doesn't take much to offend us, we find it increasingly difficult to draw the line on when we actually need to take a stand.

"Taking a stand for racism", just becomes a conditioned act that is expected of all "good, civilized citizens of the modern society", and the meaning of taking such a stand, gradually decreases into nothing. I would argue that it already has. When everybody wants to be Martin Luther King Jr, nobody truly gets to be that.

 

[Clear Winner]

What I'm saying is that Americans do not possess an exclusive understanding on what treating other people "equally and decently" means.



Sure, there are some outright racist fuckers in the world. But from what I've observed in recent times, a large part of "racial offenses" result from a lack of "ethnic considerations" and a misunderstanding of what that might amount to, rather than outright, straight-up, unadulterated and unapologetic racism directed at somebody.

I think we need to be able to draw a line between Serb psycho hooligans yelling "monkey" and throwing stones, to some dude telling a black player to go play basketball. The former is very obviously an act of hostile racism while the latter is more of a lack of "ethnic consideration".

I'm of the belief that "ethnic considerations" towards others shouldn't really be a thing, because it actually takes away some of the weight from acts of legitimate racism. If we are too prickly about our ethnicity, and when it doesn't take much to offend us, we find it increasingly difficult to draw the line on when we actually need to take a stand.

"Taking a stand for racism", just becomes a conditioned act that is expected of all "good, civilized citizens of the modern society", and the meaning of taking such a stand, gradually decreases into nothing. I would argue that it already has. When everybody wants to be Martin Luther King Jr, nobody truly gets to be that.

Look back. At no point was I referring to the basketball chant. I was strictly referring to the guy who was making light of eastern European soccer hooligans who are genuinely racist.