A Touchy Subject.

[MalcolmR]

I know this is a touchy subject, and some people have strong views, but I would like to canvass opinion.

The BBC is reporting "Tony Collins: Football League's first black manager dies at 94".

This is their photograph.




Now my first thought was, "He doesn't look black to me". OK, it's an old monochrome picture. Let's see what else is out there.







What about his parentage? According to Wikipedia:

"Tony Collins was born in Kensington, London, on 19 March 1926 to a 17-year-old unmarried white mother. His father, who was black, was not named on the birth certificate. "

So, he had a white mother and a black father. How does that make him black? He has just as much call on being white, doesn't he? Is it a requirement to have both parents be white before you can call yourself white?

Who actually decides? Is it a personal choice? Did he decide that he was black? Or did society? Did 1920's England say "Well, he has got some black in him so he must be called black"? (Back in those days it wouldn't surprise me if it was the colour of just the father that mattered.)

Of course, in the long run, it doesn't matter whether he was black, white, yellow or blue, but on what grounds can he be called the "first black manager"?.

Your thoughts please.

Attachments:

[Jim]

I hate that I have to relate this to another celebrity, but, it's the only other time I recall hearing about this involved Halle Berry and a custody suit involving her daughter. Of course, we've seen the "One Drop" clause backfire in American politics with Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren.

While I couldn't give a shit, either way. I couldn't be more white if I were made of fresh snow and cocaine. It seems to be one of those thing's that's only brought up to push one agenda or another. Kamala Harris and Barak Obama are only half black, but they're both treated as the first black President and Vice President. While it does occasionally get mentioned that Harris is half Indian, it wasn't why she was subjected to the school bussing program as a child, which obviously put her at odds with Biden in the primaries.

Did Collins' mixed background play any role in whatever challenges he faced in becoming a manager?

[mank]

Malcolm,

My opinion is that he is not black. And if the father isn't listed how do we even know he was a black man. I googled him too and I am not sure how he can be considered black. Did his mother decide he was black since she said the father was black? And, as you pointed out why does any of that matter. People are people, there are good and bad people of every race, creed, and color. Again, I don't know what the societal norm was back in 1920 but is there a reason or a benefit for his mother to say he had a black father?

[MalcolmR]

Wiki says that he was raised by his grandparents, not his mother. It was probably more of a problem for him that he was a bastard than a mulatto. (If that isn't now considered to be offensive).

I think the whole race "Black - v - White" only became serious after WWII when the "Windrush" generation were invited over to the UK, and large numbers started being employed in service industries. I think before that, it was just an interesting feature if you had a dark skin. The legendary Robin of Sherwood was said to have Moors in his band, and they certainly feature in Shakespeare's writings.

I used to belong to a Conservative Club in my home town (cheap beer and decent snooker tables). It was rather right wing to say the least and I don't remember any black/brown/yellow members (not that many lived in my area anyway). But, there was a photograph over the fireplace of the whole membership in about 1930. All the men (no women, of course!) were in their very best Sunday suits for the photo and there was one, single very black man. He wasn't on the back row, or right at the edge of the photo, he was dead centre, so clearly fully accepted.

England has always had it's colonies, and the main population of a lot other them were black or brown, so we have been used to having them within our society for centuries.

[frodi]

The father could well have been a Black Protestant. not that this sect would have anything to do with any body other than pure white male members of the reformed church.

I know, I'll get me hat and coat.

[Jim]

Feb 8, 2021 15:29:43 GMT -5 MalcolmR said:

Wiki says that he was raised by his grandparents, not his mother. It was probably more of a problem for him that he was a bastard than a mulatto. (If that isn't now considered to be offensive).

I think the whole race "Black - v - White" only became serious after WWII when the "Windrush" generation were invited over to the UK, and large numbers started being employed in service industries. I think before that, it was just an interesting feature if you had a dark skin. The legendary Robin of Sherwood was said to have Moors in his band, and they certainly feature in Shakespeare's writings.

I used to belong to a Conservative Club in my home town (cheap beer and decent snooker tables). It was rather right wing to say the least and I don't remember any black/brown/yellow members (not that many lived in my area anyway). But, there was a photograph over the fireplace of the whole membership in about 1930. All the men (no women, of course!) were in their very best Sunday suits for the photo and there was one, single very black man. He wasn't on the back row, or right at the edge of the photo, he was dead centre, so clearly fully accepted.

England has always had it's colonies, and the main population of a lot other them were black or brown, so we have been used to having them within our society for centuries.

Forgive me if this counts as just too stupid, but, from the outside looking in it appears that England has had a lot of problems regarding race.  They just haven't been big problems within your own borders.

You brought slaves over here. Played a major role in the destruction of Native Americans/First Nations in both the US and Canada. Then there's the Aboriginals in Australia and the the White Australia policies. Helped bring Apartheid to South Africa. Seems like most of your colonies were also non-white nations. 

Way back when we were being taught about the British empire, I was left with the thought that for centuries your main export was misery.

The only domestic issues I've heard about regarding Brits and race were when Lewis Hamilton started to get involved in BLM and some racists comments about the London Mayor. In fact, I'm left with the impression that much of your domestic problems involve religious clashes. An influx of Muslim immigrants has what I've read about more recently.

That said, I am a Registered Dumbass and could be COMPLETELY off base.

[graham]

Feb 8, 2021 13:56:35 GMT -5 MalcolmR said:

Who actually decides?

He does.

Of course, in the long run, it doesn't matter whether he was black, white, yellow or blue,

On the contrary (oh dear, I'm sure Mank will say I'm disagreeing just for the hell of it. Whatever...) it does matter, because, even today, as I'm sure you are aware, the "Beautiful Game" has a very noticeable problem with racism and racist attitudes, not just from the "fans", but also, regrettably some of the players.

If he is proud of his heritage and wants to encourage more non-white players into the game, then making a big deal about his ethnicity is a good way of showing them that they can be a part of football too, no matter the behaviour of the narrow minded bigots.

[MalcolmR]

Feb 8, 2021 18:29:33 GMT -5 Jim said:

You brought slaves over here. Played a major role in the destruction of Native Americans/First Nations in both the US and Canada. Then there's the Aboriginals in Australia and the the White Australia policies. Helped bring Apartheid to South Africa. Seems like most of your colonies were also non-white nations. 

Way back when we were being taught about the British empire, I was left with the thought that for centuries your main export was misery.

As we have discussed previously, the history taught in American schools seems to be a little short on balance sometimes.

Yes, our ships carried slaves across the pond. That was because we had the largest merchant fleet in the world, servicing our empire. What we didn't do was capture those slaves. Most slaves taken from the African continent were taken by fellow black natives, who, instead of killing them in tribal wars like they had done for centuries, suddenly found that these pale skinned foreigners were willing to actually pay for them. WIN-WIN!

Our main export was not misery, it was civilisation. We took many countries out of the dark ages and introduced democracy, modern farming and industrialisation. It was not in our interest to slaughter the locals. Take India. A country of millions was ruled BY CONSENT by a handful of Westerners. If they didn't want us, they could have flushed us down their new drains.

You want evidence? If we were that hated, how come they came to our aid in WW1? They sailed halfway around the world to offer their lives to save their 'Mother Country' in what was really a European conflict. Numbers of men:
Britain: 5,000,000
India: 1,440,437
Canada: 628,964
Australia: 412,953
South Africa: 136,070
New Zealand: 128,825
Other colonies: 134,837.

As for the wholesale slaughter of the indigenous population of the Americas, I think you will find that it was the westerners who settled there rather than the armies of the Europeans that murdered most of them, because they wanted to steal their lands.

Feb 8, 2021 18:29:33 GMT -5 Jim said:

The only domestic issues I've heard about regarding Brits and race were when Lewis Hamilton started to get involved in BLM and some racists comments about the London Mayor. In fact, I'm left with the impression that much of your domestic problems involve religious clashes. An influx of Muslim immigrants has what I've read about more recently.

I couldn't even tell you who the mayor of London is. We had race problems in the 1960s because the Windrush influx were seen as taking the jobs of the working classes. In fact, they did the jobs that our young men wouldn't. They came to the UK wanting to be British. Look at the photos:





They came wearing suits and ties. Totally alien to their culture, but they wanted to blend in and become British because our culture was so admired around the world. And remember, these were the very descendants of the slaves that you talk about.

Our more recent race problems have been more religious than national. The Windrush generation came wanting to be like us, our more recent immigrants came here because it was safer than their home countries, but then their religious leaders saw them falling into "western ways" and fomented hatred against us in a desperate bid to save the very culture that they had run away from.

Feb 8, 2021 18:29:33 GMT -5 Jim said:

Seems like most of your colonies were also non-white nations. 

Oh, don't worry about that, the European nations have fought each other for thousands of years trying to colonise each other. The Romans were quite good at it 2000 years ago. We only had the ability to target nations further afield after industrialisation gave us steam powered ships and the Lee-Enfield rifle.

[MalcolmR]

I'll add one further little story.

In WW11, thousands of Americans were stationed in the UK in preparation for the D-day landings. They were welcomed into our society and our pubs. However, the white Americans objected to the black Americans drinking in the same pubs. (We are talking a mere 60 years ago, here). The commanders of the American bases told the landlords of local pubs that they had to choose whether they wanted black or white American servicemen in their pubs. The white Americans went thirsty. The landlords either refused to segregate, in which case the blacks came in and the whites wouldn't, or they said they were black-only establishments. That's how we handled racist attitudes in the 1940's.

[graham]

Feb 9, 2021 7:11:55 GMT -5 MalcolmR said:

Our main export was not misery, it was civilisation. We took many countries out of the dark ages and introduced democracy, modern farming and industrialisation. It was not in our interest to slaughter the locals.

Quoting from the article I've just posted in the Random Political Posts topic:

"Now the British know what it’s like to be colonized by Britain. All across the world, we were held down by Britain and looted by private companies.

[...]

"The British let private companies like the East India Company loot places like Sri Lanka and India, reducing life expectancy and living standards for generations. During the famines where 12–30 million Indians died, mortality was highest where Britain had rail lines. It was profit over people, as a rule."

The British aristocracy didn't need to slaughter the locals, they just played off one faction against another, leaving them too weak to fight against their colonial lords and masters and now our own government is doing exactly the same with people who earn a million pounds a week telling people who earn £40k a year that it's the people getting £10k a year who are the problem and our compliant (billionaire and right-wing owned) media happy to feed these lies to the people who lap it up.

For more proof, look at where the colonial powers drew their countries' borders on the maps to deliberately set local tribal groups against each other so they would be too busy fighting between themselves to want to unite and fight the people ruling over them.

[frodi]

Feb 9, 2021 7:11:55 GMT -5 MalcolmR said:

Our main export was not misery, it was civilisation. We took many countries out of the dark ages and introduced democracy, modern farming and industrialisation. It was not in our interest to slaughter the locals. Take India. A country of millions was ruled BY CONSENT by a handful of Westerners. If they didn't want us, they could have flushed us down their new drains.


As for the wholesale slaughter of the indigenous population of the Americas, I think you will find that it was the westerners who settled there rather than the armies of the Europeans that murdered most of them, because they wanted to steal their lands.

I couldn't even tell you who the mayor of London is. We had race problems in the 1960s because the Windrush influx were seen as taking the jobs of the working classes. In fact, they did the jobs that our young men wouldn't. They came to the UK wanting to be British. Look at the photos:





They came wearing suits and ties. Totally alien to their culture, but they wanted to blend in and become British because our culture was so admired around the world. And remember, these were the very descendants of the slaves that you talk about.

Our more recent race problems have been more religious than national. The Windrush generation came wanting to be like us, our more recent immigrants came here because it was safer than their home countries, but then their religious leaders saw them falling into "western ways" and fomented hatred against us in a desperate bid to save the very culture that they had run away from.

A slightly different view. Most of the native Americans were killed off by disease brought over by all the Europeans. This left a lot of empty land.

The Windrush generation didn't come because they admired the culture. They came because they wanted a better life and the British wanted more workers. I would imagine that they dressed like that because they wanted to fit in rather than any love for the culture.

Britain didn't really bring democracy. They brought their version of democracy which was really ruling by the moneyed class. It is also a form of cultural imperialism to believe that your form of government is the best for any society.

It's like any other issue. It depends which on side you are looking in on it from.

[Jim]

Feb 9, 2021 7:11:55 GMT -5 MalcolmR said:

We took many countries out of the dark ages and introduced democracy, modern farming and industrialisation.

Did you really or was it more "democracy" by force? The same thing the US did throughout the 20th Century. Forget what the locals want, we're going to force what we think is better on you.