F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Anything non-motor racing related.
Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 3849
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Herb wrote:
pokerman wrote: It's unfortunate you use a BBC news outlet, peaceful anti racist protests as opposed to violent right wing protestors, 6 officers had minor injuries and 100 arrests were made as let's call them right wing protestors were dealt with by the riot police.

With the anti rascist protestors, dozens of police officers have been injured many with broken bones in the supposed peaceful protests, protests in which the police have not neen able to protect themselves.

Fair play that you're open about your left wing leanings, with that in mind what do you think of the BLM manifesto?
Why is it unfortunate? You absolutely fail to back up your accusations of bias - so I'll keep using then as a reliable source.
But regardless, the demonstrations were covered by many news outlets. Here's a selection for you:


https://www.thenational.scot/news/18515 ... nstration/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sters.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... churchill/

BLM don't have a manifesto that I've seen (feel free to share if you have seen one!), but I'm all on board with what they believe. I'd be interested in what you disagree with it.

To avoid doubt, this is the relevant page on their website. You'll notice the words "non-violent" are in there, but that probably disagree with your opinion on what they do.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

What parts do you disagree with?
Have you seen the anti semitic stuff UKBLM has been tweeting out today? https://twitter.com/ukblm
Can you highlight with links to some specific tweets please, because I can only see tweets in support of Palestine and criticising Israel over annexing the West Bank - a divisive topic for sure, but criticism of the Israeli state is not antisemitism. The two can often get conflated, but there is a nuance in the language and criticism of Israel by itself is not semitic. By itself, just being on Palestine's side is not antisemitic.
Completely agreed, although perhaps UKBLM should remember that jews were enslaved in Africa for 400 years and found sanctuary in Israel but anyway - https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277177624884850689

Saying that British politics is gagged of the right to critique zionism is clearly playing on the antisemitic, stereotypical trope of an all powerful jewish establishment puppet master pulling all the strings.

It's clearly racist.
Before we get on to that tweet, as that's going to require a lot of breakdown, the political organisations for Black Lives Matter are separate from most of the people supporting the movement. While obviously people supportive of those parties are going to be nearly exclusively supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement - the movement is not an organisation and organisations that are branding themselves are separate entities.

Basically the same as Brexit and the Brexit party in the UK. The Brexit party came into existence after the term Brexit was widely adopted, and most people who supported Brexit did not support the Brexit party (about 4% of people who voted for Brexit voted for the Brexit party) and while there isn't any data to refer to on this point - it's highly unlikely that those who did vote were completely in agreement with everything that came out of its leadership's mouths.

So even if the leaders of BLMUK unanimously agreed to start tweeting the most extreme antisemitic horrors, other than exposing their organisation as being a horrific organisation with people who should be arrested for hate crimes - it's still completely independent of the BLM movement.

With regards to Israel, Palestine and Zionism - this is a hugely complicated issue, it's well above my pay grade and the reason my response is so delayed is I had do to a lot of reading up on the meanings of words in order to even begin to understand them. And before any idiot on here thinks that means "I hadn't heard of Zionism before" - stop being a complete moron. Obviously I know what Zionism *is* - what I mean is that I know enough about it to know that I don't know nearly enough. In order to properly assess something like this you have to do research to understand fully what all the terminology means rather than how they are tossed around in the media as ways to draw attention to things.

Now, onto that tweet that you have linked to.

First I will start off by saying that I am broadly in agreement with you, throwing the word Zionism around is seldom a good look as it is usually done in the context of Zionist conspiracy movements or saying Zionism should be abolished, or equating Zionist and Jewish interchangeably, and beyond. It's a flag that instantly sends me to red alert if I see it mentioned - and if it was in an internet comment of a random Internet person I'd almost certainly stop reading. If it is by a notable individual or organisation then I will make sure I read it thoroughly to get the full context so I can make an assessment of the individual or organisation.

Now, when I read the tweet you linked to, it did make me feel uncomfortable. Now, the nuance of the wording does actually make that tweet semantically not antisemitic - which I will get on to - but that's not enough. People who know the rules will always work around them to allow them to implicitly say something the rules don't allow.

The reason I say that it's semantically not anti semitic is because they are not talking about Zionism as a conspiracy nor are they saying that Zionism should not exist. In that tweet - taken in isolation - they have said that criticism of Zionism is not allowed in British politics. It's still by far and away quite an uncomfortable things because many of the ways that could be meant are certainly antisemitic, and without context it's probable that the reasons are antisemitic, but criticism of Zionism could mean anything from "criticism of the idea of Zionism" (on the antisemitic end of the spectrum) to "criticism to how Zionism is currently being conducted" (ie, referring to the annexing of the West Bank, which is not antisemitic)

Without context it's a dangerous thing to say if you are not intending the antisemitic interpretation, and consequentially saying it without context means that it should be treated as an antisemitic statement. If only there were some context.

Now, it's possible you are unfamiliar with how Twitter works, rather someone deliberately seeking to show something out of context, but Twitter has a thing called threads. This is because 280 characters isn't enough to convey a complicated point. It turns out that the tweet you linked to was part 1 of a 12 tweet thread, where they explained the topic in depth. You can read the entire thread here:

https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277285470184054787

But they clearly separate the concepts of Zionism and Judaism, the actions of Israel as a political state and Israel as the home of the Jewish people. They make it abundantly clear that they are criticising the actions of the Israeli government and not the rights of Jews.

As an opening post, I will grant you, it is a strange way to phrase it because it does open the floodgates for accusations of antisemitism - but ultimately it's not been done completely out of the blue. It's happened because Keir Starmer fired Rebecca Long Bailey for a retweet she made on the grounds of antisemitism.

Now - to be clear - I am far, far from being a Rebecca Long Bailey supporter, I think that had she been voted leader of the Labour Party it would have been very damaging to UK politics as politics requires the battles to be fought in the center ground, not with both parties shelling each other at a distance. When I heard the news that she had been fired for a tweet by Starmer - I was in favour of his actions. The Labour Party needs to root out the antisemitism that had existed in its party membership.

However, I then read the tweet she was fired for. This was the tweet:

The tweet is a link to an interview in a major UK newspaper, with the headline 'People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned' to which her tweet is clearly referencing.

The antisemitism angle came about because the interviewee (Maxine Peake) claimed that the US Police were taught the neck kneeling method that killed George Floyd from the Israeli Secret Service (with an editorial note from the Independent saying this is denied by the Israeli Government). There is no mention of Zionism or Judaism in the interview.
[/color]

User avatar
Blake
Posts: 6819
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA
Contact:

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Blake »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:
TedStriker wrote: You see, herein lies the current problem. People immediately jumped to the conclusion it was deliberate targeted racism against a black person, and the media was more than happy to run with that idea for both financial and ideological reasons.

Now that it's been proved that it was a complete non-event, only a few media outlets are reporting that and certainly not with the front page vigour they reported it when it was though to be a racist attack.

So anyone who wasn't closely following the story after the inital reports (which will be the majority of people) would still have it in their mind that it was yet another example of blatant racism. This is how misconceptions are fuelled and we end up with everything being blown out of proportion as I believe it currently is.
This was the door pull.

Image
Source: https://www.bbc.com/sport/motorsport/53186184

The crime that has been cleared by the FBI is that this was not a targeted hate attack against Bubba Wallace.

The fact that there was a garage pull handle that has clearly been deliberately styled like a noose is still an unanswered question. The best case scenario is that it was put up by someone being tone deaf, however given the part of America it was in - it's unlikely to be that innocent.

In order to get as far as being reported to the FBI and the wider media, this would have gone through several people before getting that far, none of which recognised it as a door pull. The fact that it was up since October 2019 proves it was not a targeted hate crime against Wallace, however it doesn't prove the motivations for it being put up in the first place were innocent.
Actually, it seems as though NASCAR has checked EVERY garage at EVERY track and that is the only Noose being used as a garage door pull. It is also reported by a crew member of a team that was in that garage last year that there was a wood end to the pull when they were there. So, it may well be more than just a non-event.

Regardless, NASCAR has, in my opinion, handled the situation with the gravity it deserved. And I was also quite impressed with the drivers and teams show of solidarity prior the race when they all pushed or followed Wallace's car down pit row.
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

mikeyg123
Posts: 17195
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by mikeyg123 »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Herb wrote:
Why is it unfortunate? You absolutely fail to back up your accusations of bias - so I'll keep using then as a reliable source.
But regardless, the demonstrations were covered by many news outlets. Here's a selection for you:


https://www.thenational.scot/news/18515 ... nstration/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... sters.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... churchill/

BLM don't have a manifesto that I've seen (feel free to share if you have seen one!), but I'm all on board with what they believe. I'd be interested in what you disagree with it.

To avoid doubt, this is the relevant page on their website. You'll notice the words "non-violent" are in there, but that probably disagree with your opinion on what they do.

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/

What parts do you disagree with?
Have you seen the anti semitic stuff UKBLM has been tweeting out today? https://twitter.com/ukblm
Can you highlight with links to some specific tweets please, because I can only see tweets in support of Palestine and criticising Israel over annexing the West Bank - a divisive topic for sure, but criticism of the Israeli state is not antisemitism. The two can often get conflated, but there is a nuance in the language and criticism of Israel by itself is not semitic. By itself, just being on Palestine's side is not antisemitic.
Completely agreed, although perhaps UKBLM should remember that jews were enslaved in Africa for 400 years and found sanctuary in Israel but anyway - https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277177624884850689

Saying that British politics is gagged of the right to critique zionism is clearly playing on the antisemitic, stereotypical trope of an all powerful jewish establishment puppet master pulling all the strings.

It's clearly racist.
Before we get on to that tweet, as that's going to require a lot of breakdown, the political organisations for Black Lives Matter are separate from most of the people supporting the movement. While obviously people supportive of those parties are going to be nearly exclusively supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement - the movement is not an organisation and organisations that are branding themselves are separate entities.

Basically the same as Brexit and the Brexit party in the UK. The Brexit party came into existence after the term Brexit was widely adopted, and most people who supported Brexit did not support the Brexit party (about 4% of people who voted for Brexit voted for the Brexit party) and while there isn't any data to refer to on this point - it's highly unlikely that those who did vote were completely in agreement with everything that came out of its leadership's mouths.

So even if the leaders of BLMUK unanimously agreed to start tweeting the most extreme antisemitic horrors, other than exposing their organisation as being a horrific organisation with people who should be arrested for hate crimes - it's still completely independent of the BLM movement.

With regards to Israel, Palestine and Zionism - this is a hugely complicated issue, it's well above my pay grade and the reason my response is so delayed is I had do to a lot of reading up on the meanings of words in order to even begin to understand them. And before any idiot on here thinks that means "I hadn't heard of Zionism before" - stop being a complete moron. Obviously I know what Zionism *is* - what I mean is that I know enough about it to know that I don't know nearly enough. In order to properly assess something like this you have to do research to understand fully what all the terminology means rather than how they are tossed around in the media as ways to draw attention to things.

Now, onto that tweet that you have linked to.

First I will start off by saying that I am broadly in agreement with you, throwing the word Zionism around is seldom a good look as it is usually done in the context of Zionist conspiracy movements or saying Zionism should be abolished, or equating Zionist and Jewish interchangeably, and beyond. It's a flag that instantly sends me to red alert if I see it mentioned - and if it was in an internet comment of a random Internet person I'd almost certainly stop reading. If it is by a notable individual or organisation then I will make sure I read it thoroughly to get the full context so I can make an assessment of the individual or organisation.

Now, when I read the tweet you linked to, it did make me feel uncomfortable. Now, the nuance of the wording does actually make that tweet semantically not antisemitic - which I will get on to - but that's not enough. People who know the rules will always work around them to allow them to implicitly say something the rules don't allow.

The reason I say that it's semantically not anti semitic is because they are not talking about Zionism as a conspiracy nor are they saying that Zionism should not exist. In that tweet - taken in isolation - they have said that criticism of Zionism is not allowed in British politics. It's still by far and away quite an uncomfortable things because many of the ways that could be meant are certainly antisemitic, and without context it's probable that the reasons are antisemitic, but criticism of Zionism could mean anything from "criticism of the idea of Zionism" (on the antisemitic end of the spectrum) to "criticism to how Zionism is currently being conducted" (ie, referring to the annexing of the West Bank, which is not antisemitic)

Without context it's a dangerous thing to say if you are not intending the antisemitic interpretation, and consequentially saying it without context means that it should be treated as an antisemitic statement. If only there were some context.

Now, it's possible you are unfamiliar with how Twitter works, rather someone deliberately seeking to show something out of context, but Twitter has a thing called threads. This is because 280 characters isn't enough to convey a complicated point. It turns out that the tweet you linked to was part 1 of a 12 tweet thread, where they explained the topic in depth. You can read the entire thread here:

https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277285470184054787

But they clearly separate the concepts of Zionism and Judaism, the actions of Israel as a political state and Israel as the home of the Jewish people. They make it abundantly clear that they are criticising the actions of the Israeli government and not the rights of Jews.

As an opening post, I will grant you, it is a strange way to phrase it because it does open the floodgates for accusations of antisemitism - but ultimately it's not been done completely out of the blue. It's happened because Keir Starmer fired Rebecca Long Bailey for a retweet she made on the grounds of antisemitism.

Now - to be clear - I am far, far from being a Rebecca Long Bailey supporter, I think that had she been voted leader of the Labour Party it would have been very damaging to UK politics as politics requires the battles to be fought in the center ground, not with both parties shelling each other at a distance. When I heard the news that she had been fired for a tweet by Starmer - I was in favour of his actions. The Labour Party needs to root out the antisemitism that had existed in its party membership.

However, I then read the tweet she was fired for. This was the tweet:

The tweet is a link to an interview in a major UK newspaper, with the headline 'People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned' to which her tweet is clearly referencing.

The antisemitism angle came about because the interviewee (Maxine Peake) claimed that the US Police were taught the neck kneeling method that killed George Floyd from the Israeli Secret Service (with an editorial note from the Independent saying this is denied by the Israeli Government). There is no mention of Zionism or Judaism in the interview.
[/color]
The use of the word Zionism in that context isn't what I find antisemitic. What is, is the implication that Israel can get away with doing whatever it wants and government's won't criticise due to some kind of supposed network of powerful jews holding the levers of power. It is very damaging antisemitic trope that certain groups continue to play on. I'm sure you've seen the caricature of people with hooked noses playing monopoly on the backs of black people? Basically it's that. It is as a racist a stereotype as you can get.

Now in itself, if that was the only tweet about Israel that day then OK, it's bad, shouldn't be said but you could give the benefit of the doubt. But look at it in the context of scores of anti Israel tweets. It very much conflates the action taken by Israel with jews elsewhere and basically states out right that jews outside of Israel are responsible for governments around the world not taking action. It is a racist as blaming the Imam at my local mosque for continued human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.

With Rebecca Long Bailey I agree that on the face of it she was sacked for very little. But look at it in context. The Labour party does have a problem with antisemitism. Both in it's members and those on the left wing of the party. It's previous leader was, if not antisemitic himself, at the very least more comfortable with antisemitism than he would be with other types of racism. There's plenty of evidence for that. Now the Labour party is trying to deal with that. Somewhat make amends for letting down jewish people over the last half decade. With Long Bailey in particular being closely linked with the last regime obviously he is under scrutiny. Personally I think the sacking was political grandstanding more than anything. That's bad, but if it does mean Starmer is actually going to take racism in his party seriously then that's a good thing.

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 3849
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Have you seen the anti semitic stuff UKBLM has been tweeting out today? https://twitter.com/ukblm
Can you highlight with links to some specific tweets please, because I can only see tweets in support of Palestine and criticising Israel over annexing the West Bank - a divisive topic for sure, but criticism of the Israeli state is not antisemitism. The two can often get conflated, but there is a nuance in the language and criticism of Israel by itself is not semitic. By itself, just being on Palestine's side is not antisemitic.
Completely agreed, although perhaps UKBLM should remember that jews were enslaved in Africa for 400 years and found sanctuary in Israel but anyway - https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277177624884850689

Saying that British politics is gagged of the right to critique zionism is clearly playing on the antisemitic, stereotypical trope of an all powerful jewish establishment puppet master pulling all the strings.

It's clearly racist.
Before we get on to that tweet, as that's going to require a lot of breakdown, the political organisations for Black Lives Matter are separate from most of the people supporting the movement. While obviously people supportive of those parties are going to be nearly exclusively supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement - the movement is not an organisation and organisations that are branding themselves are separate entities.

Basically the same as Brexit and the Brexit party in the UK. The Brexit party came into existence after the term Brexit was widely adopted, and most people who supported Brexit did not support the Brexit party (about 4% of people who voted for Brexit voted for the Brexit party) and while there isn't any data to refer to on this point - it's highly unlikely that those who did vote were completely in agreement with everything that came out of its leadership's mouths.

So even if the leaders of BLMUK unanimously agreed to start tweeting the most extreme antisemitic horrors, other than exposing their organisation as being a horrific organisation with people who should be arrested for hate crimes - it's still completely independent of the BLM movement.

With regards to Israel, Palestine and Zionism - this is a hugely complicated issue, it's well above my pay grade and the reason my response is so delayed is I had do to a lot of reading up on the meanings of words in order to even begin to understand them. And before any idiot on here thinks that means "I hadn't heard of Zionism before" - stop being a complete moron. Obviously I know what Zionism *is* - what I mean is that I know enough about it to know that I don't know nearly enough. In order to properly assess something like this you have to do research to understand fully what all the terminology means rather than how they are tossed around in the media as ways to draw attention to things.

Now, onto that tweet that you have linked to.

First I will start off by saying that I am broadly in agreement with you, throwing the word Zionism around is seldom a good look as it is usually done in the context of Zionist conspiracy movements or saying Zionism should be abolished, or equating Zionist and Jewish interchangeably, and beyond. It's a flag that instantly sends me to red alert if I see it mentioned - and if it was in an internet comment of a random Internet person I'd almost certainly stop reading. If it is by a notable individual or organisation then I will make sure I read it thoroughly to get the full context so I can make an assessment of the individual or organisation.

Now, when I read the tweet you linked to, it did make me feel uncomfortable. Now, the nuance of the wording does actually make that tweet semantically not antisemitic - which I will get on to - but that's not enough. People who know the rules will always work around them to allow them to implicitly say something the rules don't allow.

The reason I say that it's semantically not anti semitic is because they are not talking about Zionism as a conspiracy nor are they saying that Zionism should not exist. In that tweet - taken in isolation - they have said that criticism of Zionism is not allowed in British politics. It's still by far and away quite an uncomfortable things because many of the ways that could be meant are certainly antisemitic, and without context it's probable that the reasons are antisemitic, but criticism of Zionism could mean anything from "criticism of the idea of Zionism" (on the antisemitic end of the spectrum) to "criticism to how Zionism is currently being conducted" (ie, referring to the annexing of the West Bank, which is not antisemitic)

Without context it's a dangerous thing to say if you are not intending the antisemitic interpretation, and consequentially saying it without context means that it should be treated as an antisemitic statement. If only there were some context.

Now, it's possible you are unfamiliar with how Twitter works, rather someone deliberately seeking to show something out of context, but Twitter has a thing called threads. This is because 280 characters isn't enough to convey a complicated point. It turns out that the tweet you linked to was part 1 of a 12 tweet thread, where they explained the topic in depth. You can read the entire thread here:

https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277285470184054787

But they clearly separate the concepts of Zionism and Judaism, the actions of Israel as a political state and Israel as the home of the Jewish people. They make it abundantly clear that they are criticising the actions of the Israeli government and not the rights of Jews.

As an opening post, I will grant you, it is a strange way to phrase it because it does open the floodgates for accusations of antisemitism - but ultimately it's not been done completely out of the blue. It's happened because Keir Starmer fired Rebecca Long Bailey for a retweet she made on the grounds of antisemitism.

Now - to be clear - I am far, far from being a Rebecca Long Bailey supporter, I think that had she been voted leader of the Labour Party it would have been very damaging to UK politics as politics requires the battles to be fought in the center ground, not with both parties shelling each other at a distance. When I heard the news that she had been fired for a tweet by Starmer - I was in favour of his actions. The Labour Party needs to root out the antisemitism that had existed in its party membership.

However, I then read the tweet she was fired for. This was the tweet:

The tweet is a link to an interview in a major UK newspaper, with the headline 'People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned' to which her tweet is clearly referencing.

The antisemitism angle came about because the interviewee (Maxine Peake) claimed that the US Police were taught the neck kneeling method that killed George Floyd from the Israeli Secret Service (with an editorial note from the Independent saying this is denied by the Israeli Government). There is no mention of Zionism or Judaism in the interview.
[/color]
The use of the word Zionism in that context isn't what I find antisemitic. What is, is the implication that Israel can get away with doing whatever it wants and government's won't criticise due to some kind of supposed network of powerful jews holding the levers of power. It is very damaging antisemitic trope that certain groups continue to play on. I'm sure you've seen the caricature of people with hooked noses playing monopoly on the backs of black people? Basically it's that. It is as a racist a stereotype as you can get.

Now in itself, if that was the only tweet about Israel that day then OK, it's bad, shouldn't be said but you could give the benefit of the doubt. But look at it in the context of scores of anti Israel tweets. It very much conflates the action taken by Israel with jews elsewhere and basically states out right that jews outside of Israel are responsible for governments around the world not taking action. It is a racist as blaming the Imam at my local mosque for continued human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.

With Rebecca Long Bailey I agree that on the face of it she was sacked for very little. But look at it in context. The Labour party does have a problem with antisemitism. Both in it's members and those on the left wing of the party. It's previous leader was, if not antisemitic himself, at the very least more comfortable with antisemitism than he would be with other types of racism. There's plenty of evidence for that. Now the Labour party is trying to deal with that. Somewhat make amends for letting down jewish people over the last half decade. With Long Bailey in particular being closely linked with the last regime obviously he is under scrutiny. Personally I think the sacking was political grandstanding more than anything. That's bad, but if it does mean Starmer is actually going to take racism in his party seriously then that's a good thing.
I think you are autofilling a lot of stuff in there. That's not what they have said, and I never even considered to read it that way. They are specifically referring to the fact that British politics has the debate stifled at the moment because the Tories are natural allies of the Israeli administration and Labour (through its own failings) is unable to speak on the issue due to its history of antisemitism and the failings to deal with that under Corbyn.

As for RLB - I totally agree that the reason she was sacked was because Labour can't be seen to be giving a millimetre to anything potentially antisemitic, and as Corbyn's heir, RLB is the Labour MP under the most scrutiny. I am not going to go in to the rights or wrongs of the decision to sack her, I was just describing how it is perceived among people who do see her as an ally - that she was a sacked on the basis of antisemitism for an action which clearly wasn't antisemitic.

However I do feel that Starmer was damned if it he and damned if he didn't on that topic and it is important to send a message to those who feel skeptical about Labours attempts to combat antisemitism that it won't be tolerated at all, even if it's just a suspicion. Although sacking based solely on suspicion is a pandoras box he may regret opening at a later date.

mikeyg123
Posts: 17195
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by mikeyg123 »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote: Can you highlight with links to some specific tweets please, because I can only see tweets in support of Palestine and criticising Israel over annexing the West Bank - a divisive topic for sure, but criticism of the Israeli state is not antisemitism. The two can often get conflated, but there is a nuance in the language and criticism of Israel by itself is not semitic. By itself, just being on Palestine's side is not antisemitic.
Completely agreed, although perhaps UKBLM should remember that jews were enslaved in Africa for 400 years and found sanctuary in Israel but anyway - https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277177624884850689

Saying that British politics is gagged of the right to critique zionism is clearly playing on the antisemitic, stereotypical trope of an all powerful jewish establishment puppet master pulling all the strings.

It's clearly racist.
Before we get on to that tweet, as that's going to require a lot of breakdown, the political organisations for Black Lives Matter are separate from most of the people supporting the movement. While obviously people supportive of those parties are going to be nearly exclusively supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement - the movement is not an organisation and organisations that are branding themselves are separate entities.

Basically the same as Brexit and the Brexit party in the UK. The Brexit party came into existence after the term Brexit was widely adopted, and most people who supported Brexit did not support the Brexit party (about 4% of people who voted for Brexit voted for the Brexit party) and while there isn't any data to refer to on this point - it's highly unlikely that those who did vote were completely in agreement with everything that came out of its leadership's mouths.

So even if the leaders of BLMUK unanimously agreed to start tweeting the most extreme antisemitic horrors, other than exposing their organisation as being a horrific organisation with people who should be arrested for hate crimes - it's still completely independent of the BLM movement.

With regards to Israel, Palestine and Zionism - this is a hugely complicated issue, it's well above my pay grade and the reason my response is so delayed is I had do to a lot of reading up on the meanings of words in order to even begin to understand them. And before any idiot on here thinks that means "I hadn't heard of Zionism before" - stop being a complete moron. Obviously I know what Zionism *is* - what I mean is that I know enough about it to know that I don't know nearly enough. In order to properly assess something like this you have to do research to understand fully what all the terminology means rather than how they are tossed around in the media as ways to draw attention to things.

Now, onto that tweet that you have linked to.

First I will start off by saying that I am broadly in agreement with you, throwing the word Zionism around is seldom a good look as it is usually done in the context of Zionist conspiracy movements or saying Zionism should be abolished, or equating Zionist and Jewish interchangeably, and beyond. It's a flag that instantly sends me to red alert if I see it mentioned - and if it was in an internet comment of a random Internet person I'd almost certainly stop reading. If it is by a notable individual or organisation then I will make sure I read it thoroughly to get the full context so I can make an assessment of the individual or organisation.

Now, when I read the tweet you linked to, it did make me feel uncomfortable. Now, the nuance of the wording does actually make that tweet semantically not antisemitic - which I will get on to - but that's not enough. People who know the rules will always work around them to allow them to implicitly say something the rules don't allow.

The reason I say that it's semantically not anti semitic is because they are not talking about Zionism as a conspiracy nor are they saying that Zionism should not exist. In that tweet - taken in isolation - they have said that criticism of Zionism is not allowed in British politics. It's still by far and away quite an uncomfortable things because many of the ways that could be meant are certainly antisemitic, and without context it's probable that the reasons are antisemitic, but criticism of Zionism could mean anything from "criticism of the idea of Zionism" (on the antisemitic end of the spectrum) to "criticism to how Zionism is currently being conducted" (ie, referring to the annexing of the West Bank, which is not antisemitic)

Without context it's a dangerous thing to say if you are not intending the antisemitic interpretation, and consequentially saying it without context means that it should be treated as an antisemitic statement. If only there were some context.

Now, it's possible you are unfamiliar with how Twitter works, rather someone deliberately seeking to show something out of context, but Twitter has a thing called threads. This is because 280 characters isn't enough to convey a complicated point. It turns out that the tweet you linked to was part 1 of a 12 tweet thread, where they explained the topic in depth. You can read the entire thread here:

https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277285470184054787

But they clearly separate the concepts of Zionism and Judaism, the actions of Israel as a political state and Israel as the home of the Jewish people. They make it abundantly clear that they are criticising the actions of the Israeli government and not the rights of Jews.

As an opening post, I will grant you, it is a strange way to phrase it because it does open the floodgates for accusations of antisemitism - but ultimately it's not been done completely out of the blue. It's happened because Keir Starmer fired Rebecca Long Bailey for a retweet she made on the grounds of antisemitism.

Now - to be clear - I am far, far from being a Rebecca Long Bailey supporter, I think that had she been voted leader of the Labour Party it would have been very damaging to UK politics as politics requires the battles to be fought in the center ground, not with both parties shelling each other at a distance. When I heard the news that she had been fired for a tweet by Starmer - I was in favour of his actions. The Labour Party needs to root out the antisemitism that had existed in its party membership.

However, I then read the tweet she was fired for. This was the tweet:

The tweet is a link to an interview in a major UK newspaper, with the headline 'People who couldn’t vote Labour because of Corbyn? They voted Tory as far as I’m concerned' to which her tweet is clearly referencing.

The antisemitism angle came about because the interviewee (Maxine Peake) claimed that the US Police were taught the neck kneeling method that killed George Floyd from the Israeli Secret Service (with an editorial note from the Independent saying this is denied by the Israeli Government). There is no mention of Zionism or Judaism in the interview.
[/color]
The use of the word Zionism in that context isn't what I find antisemitic. What is, is the implication that Israel can get away with doing whatever it wants and government's won't criticise due to some kind of supposed network of powerful jews holding the levers of power. It is very damaging antisemitic trope that certain groups continue to play on. I'm sure you've seen the caricature of people with hooked noses playing monopoly on the backs of black people? Basically it's that. It is as a racist a stereotype as you can get.

Now in itself, if that was the only tweet about Israel that day then OK, it's bad, shouldn't be said but you could give the benefit of the doubt. But look at it in the context of scores of anti Israel tweets. It very much conflates the action taken by Israel with jews elsewhere and basically states out right that jews outside of Israel are responsible for governments around the world not taking action. It is a racist as blaming the Imam at my local mosque for continued human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.

With Rebecca Long Bailey I agree that on the face of it she was sacked for very little. But look at it in context. The Labour party does have a problem with antisemitism. Both in it's members and those on the left wing of the party. It's previous leader was, if not antisemitic himself, at the very least more comfortable with antisemitism than he would be with other types of racism. There's plenty of evidence for that. Now the Labour party is trying to deal with that. Somewhat make amends for letting down jewish people over the last half decade. With Long Bailey in particular being closely linked with the last regime obviously he is under scrutiny. Personally I think the sacking was political grandstanding more than anything. That's bad, but if it does mean Starmer is actually going to take racism in his party seriously then that's a good thing.
I think you are autofilling a lot of stuff in there. That's not what they have said, and I never even considered to read it that way. They are specifically referring to the fact that British politics has the debate stifled at the moment because the Tories are natural allies of the Israeli administration and Labour (through its own failings) is unable to speak on the issue due to its history of antisemitism and the failings to deal with that under Corbyn.

As for RLB - I totally agree that the reason she was sacked was because Labour can't be seen to be giving a millimetre to anything potentially antisemitic, and as Corbyn's heir, RLB is the Labour MP under the most scrutiny. I am not going to go in to the rights or wrongs of the decision to sack her, I was just describing how it is perceived among people who do see her as an ally - that she was a sacked on the basis of antisemitism for an action which clearly wasn't antisemitic.

However I do feel that Starmer was damned if it he and damned if he didn't on that topic and it is important to send a message to those who feel skeptical about Labours attempts to combat antisemitism that it won't be tolerated at all, even if it's just a suspicion. Although sacking based solely on suspicion is a pandoras box he may regret opening at a later date.
No. They aren't being specific at all. This was what they literally said - "mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits"

You've then filled in the rest of the details around what YOU THINK that refers to.

But on it's own it is absolutely a very antisemitic conspiracy theory trope. I'm amazed you could deny that. If you want to understand the damage language like that can do have a look at why "jews" is trending on twitter today.

Siao7
Posts: 8372
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Siao7 »

I think I'm losing faith in humanity in general the last month. Not that it is a recent trend, but it got really stupid and hypocritical really fast.

The unfortunate death of a black person in the US has resulted into a Palestine debate a month later.

BLM supporters claiming that bringing up Floyd's past is not fair and it is racist, yet people want to tear down statues of people because of their... past?

Politicians stirring this whole mess up for their own personal agendas.

Gimmicks like white people washing black people's feet in public as repentance. Great, we beat racism guys, wash someone's feet and you are done...

Everyone with their own agenda and their own debates.


It shouldn't really surprise me after witnessing toilet paper wars in supermarkets, it just makes me incredibly sad.

mikeyg123
Posts: 17195
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by mikeyg123 »

Siao7 wrote:I think I'm losing faith in humanity in general the last month. Not that it is a recent trend, but it got really stupid and hypocritical really fast.

The unfortunate death of a black person in the US has resulted into a Palestine debate a month later.

BLM supporters claiming that bringing up Floyd's past is not fair and it is racist, yet people want to tear down statues of people because of their... past?

Politicians stirring this whole mess up for their own personal agendas.

Gimmicks like white people washing black people's feet in public as repentance. Great, we beat racism guys, wash someone's feet and you are done...

Everyone with their own agenda and their own debates.


It shouldn't really surprise me after witnessing toilet paper wars in supermarkets, it just makes me incredibly sad.
I agree 100%. All it will achieve is to whip up resentment. It can't not.

User avatar
Mod Blue
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Mod Blue »

MOD NOTICE - Now that the F1 season has arrived, and this thread has little to do with F1 - We have moved it to the Off Topic forum

User avatar
TedStriker
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:39 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by TedStriker »

I don't have a great deal to add to this as most angles have been covered, but from my personal perspective as a 'person of colour'*, I believe the way it has been handled has created more racists and racism on both sides of the argument.

The media has happily stoked the divisions too with their reporting. On the first week, we had 'mainly peaceful' protests during which many police were injured and monuments defaced. Police response to this (directed from above) was to run away, hence virtually no arrests. The following week counter protesters arrived and then we see Police in full riot gear and hey presto, loads of arrests. All attributed to the non BLM protesters by the media of course.

Then we have the urinating on the memorial incident. Firstly it was 'on' the memorial, then it was 'at' the memorial, when in actual fact what it looked like to me was a drunken idiot (who happened to be white) urinating through a fence in a corner because he's been drinking Stella (probably) all day. Unpleasant behaviour - absolutely, but anyone who thinks it was in any way aimed at or related to the memorial is seeing it through their pre conceived ideas. Same behaviour exhibited by thousands of drunk idiots every Saturday night.

* I personally hate the expression 'person of colour' and would never use it to refer to myself except to make a point, as it specifically excludes a race based on skin colour and sets up an 'us vs them' situation. It also pushes the idea that only white people can be racist. Try telling that to a black man in an Arab country.

F1 Racer
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by F1 Racer »

Weren't Bernie's comments free speach like Hamilton's? Both are alluding to unproven racism occuring right? Either both are ok to do it or both are not ok to do it. I don't like the way that Bernie's in trouble and Hamilton (among others) are not.

F1 Racer
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by F1 Racer »

It used to annoy me back in 2008 when Hamilton was referred to as F1's first black world champion. I recall James Allen saying it a few times. Why did it matter that Hamilton was black, isn't he just another racing driver like all the rest before him? All it does is draw attention to skin tone when skin tone should be irrelevant.

No one talks about the first 'blonde haired' world champion or the first '6 foot plus' world champion because no one cares for these designations, so if skin colour is truly irrelevant in the same way, then why the comment about him being a black world champion, even if it was meant in a positive light in this instance?

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4610
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Asphalt_World »

F1 Racer wrote:It used to annoy me back in 2008 when Hamilton was referred to as F1's first black world champion. I recall James Allen saying it a few times. Why did it matter that Hamilton was black, isn't he just another racing driver like all the rest before him? All it does is draw attention to skin tone when skin tone should be irrelevant.

No one talks about the first 'blonde haired' world champion or the first '6 foot plus' world champion because no one cares for these designations, so if skin colour is truly irrelevant in the same way, then why the comment about him being a black world champion, even if it was meant in a positive light in this instance?
Not sure blonde or 6 foot plus people have been on the receiving end of centuries of hate, prejudices and generally been regarded as second class citizens by so many, simply because of their hair colour or height.
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics

User avatar
f1madman
Posts: 1738
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by f1madman »

Why would Hamilton's comments bring him trouble? He's calling out racism, how is that bad?
Pathfinder

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4610
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Asphalt_World »

F1 Racer wrote:Weren't Bernie's comments free speach like Hamilton's? Both are alluding to unproven racism occuring right? Either both are ok to do it or both are not ok to do it. I don't like the way that Bernie's in trouble and Hamilton (among others) are not.
Don't confuse free speech with the ability to say anything to anyone at any time. Free speech is a dreadful phrase that is regularly used by those knowing they are being controversial, so that they have the right to say what they want.
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics

Option or Prime
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Option or Prime »

So Leclerc and Verstappen both stating on twitter they won't take the knee. I wonder which drivers would.

Have to say I can't see why there should be resistance to this, neither are stating the political stance of BLM as a reason. I have my own view on this, its not particularly sympathetic to these two. Time will tell.

User avatar
f1madman
Posts: 1738
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by f1madman »

Just read a handful of comments praising those that didn't kneel saying they've stood up against communism or Marxism or for Israel....

I really don't understand how wanting to end racism comes with so much made up bull**** that people want to reduce it to something its not.....

It shows that more needs to be done to end racism that there is so much ignorance and whataboutery when race is brought up or discussed.
Pathfinder

F1 Racer
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by F1 Racer »

f1madman wrote:Why would Hamilton's comments bring him trouble? He's calling out racism, how is that bad?
Calling out racism with no specifics. If he has proof, he should present it and get those particular racists in hot water.

It's not right to acuse people in a blanket way of being burglers or child molesters. It's the same with racism surely, they are all crimes right? Innocent until proven guilty is normally the mantra.

F1 Racer
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by F1 Racer »

f1madman wrote:Just read a handful of comments praising those that didn't kneel saying they've stood up against communism or Marxism or for Israel....

I really don't understand how wanting to end racism comes with so much made up bull**** that people want to reduce it to something its not.....

It shows that more needs to be done to end racism that there is so much ignorance and whataboutery when race is brought up or discussed.
I guess those drivers don't recall any racism that they have personally witnessed and so are unsure on this whole thing and so feel uncomfortable taking a strong stance one way or the other and would rather wait to see how things develop going forwards. Perhaps they are waiting for the evidence to come out that proves all this racism and the racists responsible are named, shamed and punished.

F1 Racer
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by F1 Racer »

Asphalt_World wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:Weren't Bernie's comments free speach like Hamilton's? Both are alluding to unproven racism occuring right? Either both are ok to do it or both are not ok to do it. I don't like the way that Bernie's in trouble and Hamilton (among others) are not.
Don't confuse free speech with the ability to say anything to anyone at any time. Free speech is a dreadful phrase that is regularly used by those knowing they are being controversial, so that they have the right to say what they want.
What is free speech then? You say it is not the ability to say anything to anyone at any time, but you don't say what free speech is as per your definition. I am intrigued to learn more.

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8009
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

Option or Prime wrote:So Leclerc and Verstappen both stating on twitter they won't take the knee. I wonder which drivers would.

Have to say I can't see why there should be resistance to this, neither are stating the political stance of BLM as a reason. I have my own view on this, its not particularly sympathetic to these two. Time will tell.
I'm in no position anyone would expect me to take a knee, I'm someone who is in agreement with the movement but I have to say after seeing the response to people who haven't taken the knee, I wouldn't either.

I read a headline of an article with a supposed quote from Hamilton along the lines of 'silence is complicit' and I dont think that's correct, nor a smart direction to take this movement. There is something sinister IMO to effectively saying 'make this gesture or you are racist/complicit in racism', it shifts the goalposts. As for some it's no longer enough to simply not do or say racist things in order to be assumed a non-racist person, you now have to make an affirmation to declare yourself non-racist. Failure to do so can result in being called all manner of things with no evidence to support them, as is clear to see from the responses to Leclerc/Verstappen etc. As I said there is something sinister to that, it makes me feel uneasy, and I wouldn't comply out of principal.

Now specifically to this instance Verstappen and Leclerc have publicly said that they are against racism and that should be good enough for anyone interested (unsure on the other drivers, but it shouldn't matter since failing to announce 'I'm not racist' publicly doesn't make you racist/complicit in racism - obviously) . In fact I would say putting their name to statements is more powerful than simply taking a knee, anyone can make a gesture without meaning it to avoid trouble with social media/sponsors etc. It takes more conviction to put your name to statement, and yet because they didnt affirm their disdain for racism in the designated way it supposedly counts for nothing. It's not a good look for the movement and does nothing to help enact any real change.

F1 Racer
Posts: 827
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by F1 Racer »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:So Leclerc and Verstappen both stating on twitter they won't take the knee. I wonder which drivers would.

Have to say I can't see why there should be resistance to this, neither are stating the political stance of BLM as a reason. I have my own view on this, its not particularly sympathetic to these two. Time will tell.
I'm in no position anyone would expect me to take a knee, I'm someone who is in agreement with the movement but I have to say after seeing the response to people who haven't taken the knee, I wouldn't either.

I read a headline of an article with a supposed quote from Hamilton along the lines of 'silence is complicit' and I dont think that's correct, nor a smart direction to take this movement. There is something sinister IMO to effectively saying 'make this gesture or you are racist/complicit in racism', it shifts the goalposts. As for some it's no longer enough to simply not do or say racist things in order to be assumed a non-racist person, you now have to make an affirmation to declare yourself non-racist. Failure to do so can result in being called all manner of things with no evidence to support them, as is clear to see from the responses to Leclerc/Verstappen etc. As I said there is something sinister to that, it makes me feel uneasy, and I wouldn't comply out of principal.

Now specifically to this instance Verstappen and Leclerc have publicly said that they are against racism and that should be good enough for anyone interested (unsure on the other drivers, but it shouldn't matter since failing to announce 'I'm not racist' publicly doesn't make you racist/complicit in racism - obviously) . In fact I would say putting their name to statements is more powerful than simply taking a knee, anyone can make a gesture without meaning it to avoid trouble with social media/sponsors etc. It takes more conviction to put your name to statement, and yet because they didnt affirm their disdain for racism in the designated way it supposedly counts for nothing. It's not a good look for the movement and does nothing to help enact any real change.
Finally someone is realising the truth. ;)

Look at all these things getting cancelled for example, and the Coco Pops monkey being a symbol of racism etc. It appears that you are allowed to alledge being offended by anything if you so choose to be, there is no minimum threshold whereby your reasonableness for being offended is tested.

Option or Prime
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Option or Prime »

Verstappen says he will make his gesture in his own time and own way. I'll wager he does nothing of the sort.
Taking a knee is synonymous with anti-racism not BLM politics. The original protest was Colin Kaepernick’s way of protesting against police brutality and designed not to offend the military, taking the knee was a halfway statement.

Hamilton is right some drivers don't understand that. Why not take the knee to show solidarity and Tweet that you don't side with BLM's Marxists views.

The abstention to my mind is an 'ism in another form. They may be right but now these drivers have to prove what they tweeted is true.

User avatar
f1madman
Posts: 1738
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by f1madman »

F1 Racer wrote:
f1madman wrote:Why would Hamilton's comments bring him trouble? He's calling out racism, how is that bad?
Calling out racism with no specifics. If he has proof, he should present it and get those particular racists in hot water.

It's not right to acuse people in a blanket way of being burglers or child molesters. It's the same with racism surely, they are all crimes right? Innocent until proven guilty is normally the mantra.
You're unbearable. You don't need proof to say racism exists, or that you're a victim of racism. Alot of racism isn't blatant name calling you know. Alot of racism is quieter, subtle, systematic and in ways more insidideous.

Some people don't even realise they're racist or that they act in ways that is biased and with prejudism. If the system is biased, even if it holds no racists, poc will still be disadvantaged.

And until Hamilton brought it up that the F1 community were completely silent during the black lives matter movement, no one in F1 said anything. Sometimes silence is complicity, because diversity wasn't important to F1 until its image had to addressed....
Pathfinder

Siao7
Posts: 8372
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Siao7 »

Asphalt_World wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:It used to annoy me back in 2008 when Hamilton was referred to as F1's first black world champion. I recall James Allen saying it a few times. Why did it matter that Hamilton was black, isn't he just another racing driver like all the rest before him? All it does is draw attention to skin tone when skin tone should be irrelevant.

No one talks about the first 'blonde haired' world champion or the first '6 foot plus' world champion because no one cares for these designations, so if skin colour is truly irrelevant in the same way, then why the comment about him being a black world champion, even if it was meant in a positive light in this instance?
Not sure blonde or 6 foot plus people have been on the receiving end of centuries of hate, prejudices and generally been regarded as second class citizens by so many, simply because of their hair colour or height.
Tell that to ginger people!!! :]

Siao7
Posts: 8372
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Siao7 »

f1madman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
f1madman wrote:Why would Hamilton's comments bring him trouble? He's calling out racism, how is that bad?
Calling out racism with no specifics. If he has proof, he should present it and get those particular racists in hot water.

It's not right to acuse people in a blanket way of being burglers or child molesters. It's the same with racism surely, they are all crimes right? Innocent until proven guilty is normally the mantra.
You're unbearable. You don't need proof to say racism exists, or that you're a victim of racism. Alot of racism isn't blatant name calling you know. Alot of racism is quieter, subtle, systematic and in ways more insidideous.

Some people don't even realise they're racist or that they act in ways that is biased and with prejudism. If the system is biased, even if it holds no racists, poc will still be disadvantaged.

And until Hamilton brought it up that the F1 community were completely silent during the black lives matter movement, no one in F1 said anything. Sometimes silence is complicity, because diversity wasn't important to F1 until its image had to addressed....
It is different though, Hamilton didn't call out the systemic racism alone though, did he? He said the "silence is complicity" specifically addressing his fellow drivers, people that I do not believe they have ever been nasty towards him in respect of his colour, at least as far as we know. People that he knows they have large fan bases and frankly just wanted to use them to spread this message. As good as it is as an idea, calling out people because they do not feel as strong as you on one matter is something that just doesn't sit well with me. If you feel right about this, then fine I guess.

He wants bigger diversity in F1, which is of course good, but how is that accomplished by shaming his fellow drivers? This is not a nice way to get them to back your cause, especially when all of them have expressed their support. But forget this, inconveniencing a few pampered, rich white boys is not the end of the world. The issue for me is that the problem does not start in F1, there is not bouncer (as was reported somewhere) in F1 that stops non-white people from entering the F1 world. The problem exists outside F1, the systemic/institutional racism that does not allow certain young people to reach higher education and make it as engineers (since we are talking for F1). So, as I've written before, it would be much better if they created a fund for such things (I think now they have talked about it), rather than shaming the other drivers.

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4610
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Asphalt_World »

Siao7 wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:It used to annoy me back in 2008 when Hamilton was referred to as F1's first black world champion. I recall James Allen saying it a few times. Why did it matter that Hamilton was black, isn't he just another racing driver like all the rest before him? All it does is draw attention to skin tone when skin tone should be irrelevant.

No one talks about the first 'blonde haired' world champion or the first '6 foot plus' world champion because no one cares for these designations, so if skin colour is truly irrelevant in the same way, then why the comment about him being a black world champion, even if it was meant in a positive light in this instance?
Not sure blonde or 6 foot plus people have been on the receiving end of centuries of hate, prejudices and generally been regarded as second class citizens by so many, simply because of their hair colour or height.
Tell that to ginger people!!! :]
I don't have to, I am one.
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4610
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Asphalt_World »

F1 Racer wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:Weren't Bernie's comments free speach like Hamilton's? Both are alluding to unproven racism occuring right? Either both are ok to do it or both are not ok to do it. I don't like the way that Bernie's in trouble and Hamilton (among others) are not.
Don't confuse free speech with the ability to say anything to anyone at any time. Free speech is a dreadful phrase that is regularly used by those knowing they are being controversial, so that they have the right to say what they want.
What is free speech then? You say it is not the ability to say anything to anyone at any time, but you don't say what free speech is as per your definition. I am intrigued to learn more.
There are many situations where telling people that the Holocaust didn't happen in wrong. People have the right to deny it happened, but most countries do not allow this being taught, discussed at will.
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics

User avatar
f1madman
Posts: 1738
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by f1madman »

Siao7 wrote:
f1madman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
f1madman wrote:Why would Hamilton's comments bring him trouble? He's calling out racism, how is that bad?
Calling out racism with no specifics. If he has proof, he should present it and get those particular racists in hot water.

It's not right to acuse people in a blanket way of being burglers or child molesters. It's the same with racism surely, they are all crimes right? Innocent until proven guilty is normally the mantra.
You're unbearable. You don't need proof to say racism exists, or that you're a victim of racism. Alot of racism isn't blatant name calling you know. Alot of racism is quieter, subtle, systematic and in ways more insidideous.

Some people don't even realise they're racist or that they act in ways that is biased and with prejudism. If the system is biased, even if it holds no racists, poc will still be disadvantaged.

And until Hamilton brought it up that the F1 community were completely silent during the black lives matter movement, no one in F1 said anything. Sometimes silence is complicity, because diversity wasn't important to F1 until its image had to addressed....
It is different though, Hamilton didn't call out the systemic racism alone though, did he? He said the "silence is complicity" specifically addressing his fellow drivers, people that I do not believe they have ever been nasty towards him in respect of his colour, at least as far as we know. People that he knows they have large fan bases and frankly just wanted to use them to spread this message. As good as it is as an idea, calling out people because they do not feel as strong as you on one matter is something that just doesn't sit well with me. If you feel right about this, then fine I guess.

He wants bigger diversity in F1, which is of course good, but how is that accomplished by shaming his fellow drivers? This is not a nice way to get them to back your cause, especially when all of them have expressed their support. But forget this, inconveniencing a few pampered, rich white boys is not the end of the world. The issue for me is that the problem does not start in F1, there is not bouncer (as was reported somewhere) in F1 that stops non-white people from entering the F1 world. The problem exists outside F1, the systemic/institutional racism that does not allow certain young people to reach higher education and make it as engineers (since we are talking for F1). So, as I've written before, it would be much better if they created a fund for such things (I think now they have talked about it), rather than shaming the other drivers.
He hasn't bullied his fellow drivers. The complicity comment started from his initial message before ANYONE in F1 driver/teams/organiser/big dog had even bother to mention it. He's not singling anyone out. And once he did a few drivers like Leclerc, Riccardo, Norris broke their silence as they now had the courage to say something and not be muted from the pressures of PR.

If anything Hamilton has praised the solidarity the drivers have shown and them doing things on their own way to end racism is hugely appreciated. Silence is complicity, does make people feel uncomfortable I guess, but I suppose thats the point if you feel the sport doesn't allow you to speak your mind on such issues. Having the courage to speak is important.

I agree the problem may not start in F1 but there are problems within F1, maybe not as big as other places, but what are the FIA doing to entice more diverse backgrounds into F1? Most FIA feeder series are very Euorpean, there's no good having a race in Bahrain if there's no push to develop grass root racing from such backgrounds. Ultimately even if you're white european boy its still an expensive sport to start in and then you need the sponsership and marketting appeal to move up the series. F1 isn't even a grid full of the best drivers, when there are pay drivers racing for the poorer teams. Its an inaccessbile sport even if you're lucky to be born in a rich country.
Pathfinder

Siao7
Posts: 8372
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Siao7 »

f1madman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
f1madman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
f1madman wrote:Why would Hamilton's comments bring him trouble? He's calling out racism, how is that bad?
Calling out racism with no specifics. If he has proof, he should present it and get those particular racists in hot water.

It's not right to acuse people in a blanket way of being burglers or child molesters. It's the same with racism surely, they are all crimes right? Innocent until proven guilty is normally the mantra.
You're unbearable. You don't need proof to say racism exists, or that you're a victim of racism. Alot of racism isn't blatant name calling you know. Alot of racism is quieter, subtle, systematic and in ways more insidideous.

Some people don't even realise they're racist or that they act in ways that is biased and with prejudism. If the system is biased, even if it holds no racists, poc will still be disadvantaged.

And until Hamilton brought it up that the F1 community were completely silent during the black lives matter movement, no one in F1 said anything. Sometimes silence is complicity, because diversity wasn't important to F1 until its image had to addressed....
It is different though, Hamilton didn't call out the systemic racism alone though, did he? He said the "silence is complicity" specifically addressing his fellow drivers, people that I do not believe they have ever been nasty towards him in respect of his colour, at least as far as we know. People that he knows they have large fan bases and frankly just wanted to use them to spread this message. As good as it is as an idea, calling out people because they do not feel as strong as you on one matter is something that just doesn't sit well with me. If you feel right about this, then fine I guess.

He wants bigger diversity in F1, which is of course good, but how is that accomplished by shaming his fellow drivers? This is not a nice way to get them to back your cause, especially when all of them have expressed their support. But forget this, inconveniencing a few pampered, rich white boys is not the end of the world. The issue for me is that the problem does not start in F1, there is not bouncer (as was reported somewhere) in F1 that stops non-white people from entering the F1 world. The problem exists outside F1, the systemic/institutional racism that does not allow certain young people to reach higher education and make it as engineers (since we are talking for F1). So, as I've written before, it would be much better if they created a fund for such things (I think now they have talked about it), rather than shaming the other drivers.
He hasn't bullied his fellow drivers. The complicity comment started from his initial message before ANYONE in F1 driver/teams/organiser/big dog had even bother to mention it. He's not singling anyone out. And once he did a few drivers like Leclerc, Riccardo, Norris broke their silence as they now had the courage to say something and not be muted from the pressures of PR.

If anything Hamilton has praised the solidarity the drivers have shown and them doing things on their own way to end racism is hugely appreciated. Silence is complicity, does make people feel uncomfortable I guess, but I suppose thats the point if you feel the sport doesn't allow you to speak your mind on such issues. Having the courage to speak is important.

I agree the problem may not start in F1 but there are problems within F1, maybe not as big as other places, but what are the FIA doing to entice more diverse backgrounds into F1? Most FIA feeder series are very Euorpean, there's no good having a race in Bahrain if there's no push to develop grass root racing from such backgrounds. Ultimately even if you're white european boy its still an expensive sport to start in and then you need the sponsership and marketting appeal to move up the series. F1 isn't even a grid full of the best drivers, when there are pay drivers racing for the poorer teams. Its an inaccessbile sport even if you're lucky to be born in a rich country.
As far as I am aware the message "silence is complicity" appeared only 3 or so days ago when addressing his fellow drivers. He did call out F1 in general from the beginning, but the message I was talking about was only from last weekend. And no one talked about bullying his fellow drivers, bullying has the meaning of repetitive aggressive behaviour, harassing and intimidating with the purpose of harming, which is not what I said. He forced/shamed them into something that some drivers were uneasy with, but that is different than bullying. So please don't get my message wrong. In any case, I am not sure how the sport stops them from speaking, they all have their own social media and they can talk to the world. I do not think the FIA has ever done anything to prevent drivers from talking to the media; I guess anything that resembles to "defamation of the sport" would warrant some kind of a penalty from the FIA, but I can not remember anything as such.

I'm also not sure why you are talking about the drivers only, the message Hamilton sent out is for diversity across the F1 sport, from drivers to engineers and any kind of employee. And as I mentioned above, I do not think F1 has actively stopped anyone from entering the F1 world. I am pretty sure that people have passed CV's of people because of their colour, but that is not a directive from the F1 world, rather individuals acting stupidly and non-professionally. I would like to see some initiative for funding young people (as they have reportedly talked about it now), but other than that I am not sure what you would like them to do.

BMWSauber84
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by BMWSauber84 »

On the plus side, it's given a lot of people who have never liked Lewis Hamilton to pretend that they used to like him until this.

Option or Prime
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Option or Prime »

BMWSauber84 wrote:On the plus side, it's given a lot of people who have never liked Lewis Hamilton to pretend that they used to like him until this.
That makes them racist doesn't it?

Option or Prime
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Option or Prime »

Siao7 wrote: As far as I am aware the message "silence is complicity" appeared only 3 or so days ago when addressing his fellow drivers. He did call out F1 in general from the beginning, but the message I was talking about was only from last weekend. And no one talked about bullying his fellow drivers, bullying has the meaning of repetitive aggressive behaviour, harassing and intimidating with the purpose of harming, which is not what I said. He forced/shamed them into something that some drivers were uneasy with, but that is different than bullying. So please don't get my message wrong. In any case, I am not sure how the sport stops them from speaking, they all have their own social media and they can talk to the world. I do not think the FIA has ever done anything to prevent drivers from talking to the media; I guess anything that resembles to "defamation of the sport" would warrant some kind of a penalty from the FIA, but I can not remember anything as such.

I'm also not sure why you are talking about the drivers only, the message Hamilton sent out is for diversity across the F1 sport, from drivers to engineers and any kind of employee. And as I mentioned above, I do not think F1 has actively stopped anyone from entering the F1 world. I am pretty sure that people have passed CV's of people because of their colour, but that is not a directive from the F1 world, rather individuals acting stupidly and non-professionally. I would like to see some initiative for funding young people (as they have reportedly talked about it now), but other than that I am not sure what you would like them to do.
Good points. F1 is proving to be at odds with many other sports with a clear divide. Premier League Football has consistently shown unity with all players on both teams joining in with protest. Hamilton has a bit of a dilemma as its clear he is showing leadership in his sport but his main aim has to be winning the WDC and he has to avoid this becoming a distraction.

I find the reasons for not joining in a little weak. Particularly when drivers like Verstappen say thing to the effect, "I'll make my protest in my own time and in my own way." Its been two Grand Prix now Max and nothing.
I wonder if we will ever see anything?

I don't take the bullying suggestion in any way, its just making people uncomfortable, let's face it we should be, it shouldn't become an obsession though and it has to remain proportionate.

BMWSauber84
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by BMWSauber84 »

Option or Prime wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:On the plus side, it's given a lot of people who have never liked Lewis Hamilton to pretend that they used to like him until this.
That makes them racist doesn't it?
Oh dear. You'll have to point out where I said that in my post because I can't see it.

Edit: I've had another look. Still can't see it.

Option or Prime
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Option or Prime »

BMWSauber84 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:On the plus side, it's given a lot of people who have never liked Lewis Hamilton to pretend that they used to like him until this.
That makes them racist doesn't it?
Oh dear. You'll have to point out where I said that in my post because I can't see it.

Edit: I've had another look. Still can't see it.
Didn't say you did, its a question?

They never liked him before, racism comes along so now its an excuse not to like him. Whats that all about?

BMWSauber84
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by BMWSauber84 »

Option or Prime wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:On the plus side, it's given a lot of people who have never liked Lewis Hamilton to pretend that they used to like him until this.
That makes them racist doesn't it?
Oh dear. You'll have to point out where I said that in my post because I can't see it.

Edit: I've had another look. Still can't see it.
Didn't say you did, its a question?

They never liked him before, racism comes along so now its an excuse not to like him. Whats that all about?
My apologies. I read the "doesn't" as "does" and as a result misread it's entire tone as accusatory. I don't like to throw the R word around, it's certainly odd if someone suddenly doesn't like him because he has become vocal about black rights. The level of vitriol directed towards Hamilton by some (and I'm not claiming there aren't legitimate reasons not to be a fan) goes way beyond proportionate.

I've seen various excuses made about it being because "BLM is Marxist" or "I watch sport to escape politics". Another classic is the whataboutery logic claiming Hamilton's stance on Black Lives Matter means he is a hypocrite unless he also takes a stand against every other injustice in the world. There is also the ludicrous claim that he is somehow racist against white people and ashamed of the white part of his heritage.

Siao7
Posts: 8372
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Siao7 »

BMWSauber84 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:On the plus side, it's given a lot of people who have never liked Lewis Hamilton to pretend that they used to like him until this.
That makes them racist doesn't it?
Oh dear. You'll have to point out where I said that in my post because I can't see it.

Edit: I've had another look. Still can't see it.
Didn't say you did, its a question?

They never liked him before, racism comes along so now its an excuse not to like him. Whats that all about?
My apologies. I read the "doesn't" as "does" and as a result misread it's entire tone as accusatory. I don't like to throw the R word around, it's certainly odd if someone suddenly doesn't like him because he has become vocal about black rights. The level of vitriol directed towards Hamilton by some (and I'm not claiming there aren't legitimate reasons not to be a fan) goes way beyond proportionate.

I've seen various excuses made about it being because "BLM is Marxist" or "I watch sport to escape politics". Another classic is the whataboutery logic claiming Hamilton's stance on Black Lives Matter means he is a hypocrite unless he also takes a stand against every other injustice in the world. There is also the ludicrous claim that he is somehow racist against white people and ashamed of the white part of his heritage.
I am not sure I've seen such level of vitriol against Hamilton, talking about this site of course (unless you mean in general). And like anyone else who publishes things in the internet (especially a celebrity), he is subject to criticism, which is not vitriol exactly, nor racism (normally, I'm sure there are people like that).

I've questioned some of his actions on this subject myself; his intentions are obviously good, I'm just concerned with his methods. However now I am afraid that people will be put off, from someone keep telling them off. If he keeps calling out or accusing the teams and drivers, he will end up not be the most welcome guy on the grid.

Option or Prime
Posts: 1810
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:50 am
Location: UK

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Option or Prime »

I'm not sure he will be that bothered about that Siao7, there isn't much vitriol on this site but then most on here recognise talent even if its not in their favourite car.

On some of the general sports boards its more noticeable though. I see quite a lot relating to his tax status. I think its a bit of double discrimination with some, he is not a son of a wealthy parent who one who owns a team or one who used to drive in F1 or lives in Monaco so its a bit of a class issue coupled with a bit of a race issue etc..

BMWSauber84
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by BMWSauber84 »

Option or Prime wrote:
Siao7 wrote: As far as I am aware the message "silence is complicity" appeared only 3 or so days ago when addressing his fellow drivers. He did call out F1 in general from the beginning, but the message I was talking about was only from last weekend. And no one talked about bullying his fellow drivers, bullying has the meaning of repetitive aggressive behaviour, harassing and intimidating with the purpose of harming, which is not what I said. He forced/shamed them into something that some drivers were uneasy with, but that is different than bullying. So please don't get my message wrong. In any case, I am not sure how the sport stops them from speaking, they all have their own social media and they can talk to the world. I do not think the FIA has ever done anything to prevent drivers from talking to the media; I guess anything that resembles to "defamation of the sport" would warrant some kind of a penalty from the FIA, but I can not remember anything as such.

I'm also not sure why you are talking about the drivers only, the message Hamilton sent out is for diversity across the F1 sport, from drivers to engineers and any kind of employee. And as I mentioned above, I do not think F1 has actively stopped anyone from entering the F1 world. I am pretty sure that people have passed CV's of people because of their colour, but that is not a directive from the F1 world, rather individuals acting stupidly and non-professionally. I would like to see some initiative for funding young people (as they have reportedly talked about it now), but other than that I am not sure what you would like them to do.
Good points. F1 is proving to be at odds with many other sports with a clear divide. Premier League Football has consistently shown unity with all players on both teams joining in with protest. Hamilton has a bit of a dilemma as its clear he is showing leadership in his sport but his main aim has to be winning the WDC and he has to avoid this becoming a distraction.

I find the reasons for not joining in a little weak. Particularly when drivers like Verstappen say thing to the effect, "I'll make my protest in my own time and in my own way." Its been two Grand Prix now Max and nothing.
I wonder if we will ever see anything?

I don't take the bullying suggestion in any way, its just making people uncomfortable, let's face it we should be, it shouldn't become an obsession though and it has to remain proportionate.
Verstappen is in a tricky position. I don't doubt for a minute that he opposes racism, but there is still quite a divide in Holland, and there are a number of his fanbase that are clearly very anti BLM judging by the outpouring of supportive tweets about his decision not to kneel, including a hashtag translating to "don't kneel for idiots" trending. Max is driving a Dutch resurgence in F1 support, so he clearly doesn't want to alienate a section of his fanbase.

It's a similar situation Alonso found himself in back in 08 when those Spanish fans blacked up to degrade Hamilton's family. He condemned it, but not exactly in the most authoritative manner. Like Max now, Alonso then was almost single handedly responsible for an F1 boom in his country. He clearly didn't want to alienate a section of his fanbase with more erm...old fashioned ideals.

Asphalt_World
Posts: 4610
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by Asphalt_World »

BMWSauber84 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:On the plus side, it's given a lot of people who have never liked Lewis Hamilton to pretend that they used to like him until this.
That makes them racist doesn't it?
Oh dear. You'll have to point out where I said that in my post because I can't see it.

Edit: I've had another look. Still can't see it.
To be fair, you didn't say it, but when I read you post, it does seem to infer that they are now racist!
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Instagram @simply_italian_car_pics

JN23
Posts: 1958
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am

Re: F1, Racism & BlackLivesMatter

Post by JN23 »

BMWSauber84 wrote:
Option or Prime wrote:
Siao7 wrote: As far as I am aware the message "silence is complicity" appeared only 3 or so days ago when addressing his fellow drivers. He did call out F1 in general from the beginning, but the message I was talking about was only from last weekend. And no one talked about bullying his fellow drivers, bullying has the meaning of repetitive aggressive behaviour, harassing and intimidating with the purpose of harming, which is not what I said. He forced/shamed them into something that some drivers were uneasy with, but that is different than bullying. So please don't get my message wrong. In any case, I am not sure how the sport stops them from speaking, they all have their own social media and they can talk to the world. I do not think the FIA has ever done anything to prevent drivers from talking to the media; I guess anything that resembles to "defamation of the sport" would warrant some kind of a penalty from the FIA, but I can not remember anything as such.

I'm also not sure why you are talking about the drivers only, the message Hamilton sent out is for diversity across the F1 sport, from drivers to engineers and any kind of employee. And as I mentioned above, I do not think F1 has actively stopped anyone from entering the F1 world. I am pretty sure that people have passed CV's of people because of their colour, but that is not a directive from the F1 world, rather individuals acting stupidly and non-professionally. I would like to see some initiative for funding young people (as they have reportedly talked about it now), but other than that I am not sure what you would like them to do.
Good points. F1 is proving to be at odds with many other sports with a clear divide. Premier League Football has consistently shown unity with all players on both teams joining in with protest. Hamilton has a bit of a dilemma as its clear he is showing leadership in his sport but his main aim has to be winning the WDC and he has to avoid this becoming a distraction.

I find the reasons for not joining in a little weak. Particularly when drivers like Verstappen say thing to the effect, "I'll make my protest in my own time and in my own way." Its been two Grand Prix now Max and nothing.
I wonder if we will ever see anything?

I don't take the bullying suggestion in any way, its just making people uncomfortable, let's face it we should be, it shouldn't become an obsession though and it has to remain proportionate.
Verstappen is in a tricky position. I don't doubt for a minute that he opposes racism, but there is still quite a divide in Holland, and there are a number of his fanbase that are clearly very anti BLM judging by the outpouring of supportive tweets about his decision not to kneel, including a hashtag translating to "don't kneel for idiots" trending. Max is driving a Dutch resurgence in F1 support, so he clearly doesn't want to alienate a section of his fanbase.

It's a similar situation Alonso found himself in back in 08 when those Spanish fans blacked up to degrade Hamilton's family. He condemned it, but not exactly in the most authoritative manner. Like Max now, Alonso then was almost single handedly responsible for an F1 boom in his country. He clearly didn't want to alienate a section of his fanbase with more erm...old fashioned ideals.
I’d happily alienate a section of my fan base if they tweet things like ‘don’t kneel for idiots’. If Max really is opposed to racism, he should call that out.

Post Reply