Mesut Özil and Germany’s Institutional Racism

105 comments

1. I have to say I was very disappointed by his German teammates in all of this. The Bayern lot have been horrible, starting with Hoeness. I think Boateng did support Ozil, but in fairly mild terms. Which is understandable really. Julian Brandt I think was the other one to speak out in Ozil’s defense. I’d understand if the rest would keep quiet publicly, but to intentionally obfuscate what Ozil said is just terrible. I’m glad Ozil is not going to be playing with them again.

   Also, I think while this must be disappointing for Ozil, he has shown incredible courage in taking this head on. You could call it his PR or whatever, but he’s consistently stepped up and not shied away from ‘controversial’ issues. Whether it be defending Wenger when it was rumoured he’d lost the team, or speaking out against the ‘legends’ who only criticise, and now this even larger issue of institutional racism and politics in Germany. I don’t care what anyone says, Ozil’s got big balls.

2. The German FA picks black and brown players, the players integrate with them, and play against and alongside players from the deepest black Africa. How, they reason, could THEY possibly be racist? Except that Ozil isn’t calling them out, is he?

   Whitesplaining away racism is an infuriatingly common practice in the age of Trump, the world’s best-known racist. Not that Trump is responsible for the Ozil issue, let me hasten to add. But today, more than ever, people rush to tell black and brown folks that they can’t possibly be feeling what they say that they are feeling.

   They’re not stupid. They surely undersatnd that Mesut isn’t talking about them. So what gives?

   1. I really don’t understand the purpose of using the outdated and racist ‘deepest black Africa’ epithet.

      1. I read that as satire at the German FA’s attitude.

         1. Yeah, me too. Very much sarcasm / satire font.

      2. Definitely sarcasm…

3. 1. The treatment Mesut’s got has been disgusting, arguably worse after his retirement than before it (though I didn’t follow everything from German fans and media during the WC). The Bayern folks in particular have been reprehensible, and I believe there is absolutely racist motivations in the way Hoeness attacked him when the whole thing was obviously none of his business (it’s not like Ozil personally attacked the Bayern players in the German squad).

   2. Honigstein says the Low quote going around that says Mesut’s claims of racism are ‘exaggerated’ is a bad translation; better to interpret him as saying Mesut ‘went too far’ in attacking the German FA, or something like that. Not sure it makes too much of a difference, but maybe Low wasn’t really meaning to attack Ozil. It also seems apparent that Low was genuinely hurt that Mesut didn’t contact him personally after deciding to retire.

   3. For what it’s worth, I’ve long thought that the primary motivation for Mesut being attacked is probably not racism, and that while he certainly endured racist abuse in Germany (and even more so now), and it’s completely legitimate for him to express how he’s felt, focusing exclusively on racism like his statement did actually misses the more complex nature of the abuse that’s come his way.

   Hear me: I’m not trying to minimize genuine racism that he’s suffered and that exists in German culture; rather, my point is that it’s long seemed to me that Ozil is irrationally hated and scapegoated by fans and the media in England as much as in Germany, for reasons that (at least apparently) have nothing to do with racism. If he were a white German, but otherwise the same, I’d expect he’d have still received the vast majority of criticism he’s received for his Arsenal and Germany performances over the years, and in my opinion these criticisms have for a very long time been egregiously overblown.

   This subject has been done to death over the years, so I’ll try to keep it brief here. And I’m not saying Mesut hasn’t been poor at times or is never deserving of criticism. But I don’t think I can recall another example of a player that has endured the level of scapegoating by the English-speaking football media that Ozil has had to put up with since he moved to Arsenal. I don’t think most of that has been racist (xenophobic at times, perhaps, but that hardly explains why Ozil rather than other foreigners has been targeted).

   Rather, he’s hated because:
   (a) he doesn’t fit English football culture’s blinkered view about toughness and “pashun,” and his body language is particularly irksome to these people;
   (b) he’s a creative artist, and English football culture is always suspicious of such players; they’re always guilty until proven innocent, and when things are going badly for the team, their contribution is always the first to be questioned;
   (c) there’s a ridiculous double standard by which offensive creative types are expected to attempt to match the graft of the Kantes of the world or they’re considered to be not contributing enough, whereas the Kantes of the world are praised to the heavens without (understandably!) anyone expecting them to have the skills of the offensive creators;
   (d) unlike other attacking mavericks, Mesut’s skill set is, in the vast majority of cases, remarkably subtle and unspectacular, so (with all due respect to fellow fans) many people just miss it altogether, or fail to appreciate how effective it can be. If that makes me sound like an intellectual/hipster snob, then so be it–it’s still true. He’s the anti-Gareth Bale: someone like Bale has all kinds of weaknesses in his game that can hurt his team when he’s not at his best, but he’s an extraordinary athlete who specializes in the spectacular, the sorts of feats that even the novice viewer can appreciate, such that even when Bale is off the boil, everyone still rates him (I’m not attacking Bale per se; just using him as an example to make the contrast);
   (e) Ozil’s on a lot of money, and has been considered Arsenal’s first or second best player for years, so he’s an easy target;
   (f) he plays for Arsenal, and the English media love to hate/ridicule us like no other club;
   (e) he looks weird/ugly, and doesn’t have an obviously attractive, media-accessible personality that could endear him to fans and pundits.

   I think all of the above contributes to explaining why people love to bash Ozil, but I admit it’s still an inadequate explanation.

   1. Ok, I’ve apparently forgotten the alphabet: the last (e) should be (g) 🙂

   2. I think the latter reasons explain why he’s considered an outsider as a person, but politically, his ‘race’ or religion or nationality..His identity, has always been an issue. To be fair, he was touted as an example of multiculturalism by Germany too, let’s not forget. But right now, he just got caught between the racist right wing crazies, and what I call the illiberal left who don’t care about the victims they claim in pursuance of their agenda as well.

      Ozil’s specific complaint was that he didn’t feel he was supported enough against racist attacks by the German FA and NT. He never said that they, except for Grindel maybe, were racist. Just that they stood by and let him bear the brunt of it, and were happy to let him be the scapegoat for the team’s poor performance. He’s right on both counts.

      England also saw him destroying them very early in his NT career. They tend to remember these things. Add jealousy to the factors.

      1. I’m going to let you pull a Glenn Greenwald on us; contorting an argument against cons to attack liberals.

         So Im challenging you to explain how/why Ozil’s situation is the result of “the illiberal left who don’t care about the victims they claim in pursuance of their agenda as well.”

         1. Should read, “Im NOT going to let you…”

            1. There’s no contortion required. Why did the left not defend Ozil against the racists? Because they were too busy criticising him for not practicing THEIR politics, ie condemning/isolating Erdogan.

               In effect, both were happy to pile onto Ozil and let others do the same, for their own political ends.

               Not sure what you mean by pulling a Greenwald. ‘Calling out’ a system/ideology/POV you believe is closer to your line of thought is not the same as being in/favouring an opposing camp, as so many seem to believe these days.

            2. Tim can ban me for saying this, but when it comes to left/right politics and laying bare your prejudices, you’re such an intellectually dishonest tw*t, Shard (supply your own vowel, mine is the first).

               Of course some on “the left” (a broad tent if ever there was one) came to Ozil’s defence over this issue? Where were you? On Jupiter?

               And to apply your broadbrush, “the left” criticised Ozil for taking a picture with Erdogan? No one who holds a political position that can be described as leftist/liberal defended him on that? Are you sure that you want to stick with this argument?

               The nonsense answer does not even defend the contention on which I challenged you.

               Greenwald, who you lovingly cited before is the king of the intellectually dishonest swivel, false equivalence and whataboutism. If someone criticises Trump for saying . something racist, Greenwald’s immediate riposte is that some Democrat did the same in 1959.

            3. Yes, thats pretty much nonsense, Shard. The equivalence is bogus and it doesn’t hold. And that certain ignorant lefties are happy to let him have racists abusing him is just nonsense. PFO is right in so far that there’s a specific Venn diagram of criticism that he inhabits had there is an ugly underside to some. But the picture with Erdogan was not cool and he deserved to be called out.

            4. Ozil’s a dishonest tw*t from Jupiter too I suppose because he felt the need to point out this Erdogan thing in his statement. Apparently you can’t downplay his experience when it comes to the issue you feel strongly about, but feel free to downplay and attack anyone who brings up an issue you do not agree with. And then you say I’m intellectually dishonest.

               And at no time did I equate the ‘offensiveness’ of the two POVs by the way. Just pointed out that Ozil was caught in the middle of both sides (of a not always linear political spectrum) eager to play politics over this. And yes, the left..liberals..whatever… as a group, did not do enough to say the things that Ozil felt compelled to say in defense of a photograph with the President of Turkey, and this contributed to his isolation. Is this true of EVERYBODY? Of course not. Since when is that the threshold?

               As for Greenwald. Sorry, I don’t follow individuals’ careers. I believe more in ideas. (distinct from ideologies) Someone I disagree with broadly can be right about some things. Or at the very least provide food for thought. Greenwald in that interview said exactly what I wanted to say about that specific issue. That there’s no evidence yet, that there’s an overreaction to what it means etc. I don’t know much else about him, except that he was part of the Snowden interview. But you weirdly seem to think quoting someone, or even understanding someone, means endorsing everything about them and their ideas.

               Also, the term ‘whataboutism’ has itself become a tool to curb any alternate POV. Because anytime someone tries to bring in context it is treated as whataboutism..

               For instance, growing up, Christ being crucified represented to me a horrific and extreme punishment. It doesn’t mean crucifixion is any less horrible but when I learnt that it was a fairly routine punishment at the time I could understand it better. Sorry to the religious but that’s the first example I could come up with. Of course you would say it’s whataboutism to say anyone else was also crucified.

               Frankly, I don’t need nor care for your endorsement on where I stand on the left/right spectrum. I don’t have an absolute dogmatic position anyway. But I identify with liberal values, and although political definitions are always trickier than linguistic definitions, to me, people who claim to be liberals today are not very liberal in how they behave. And you, with your either with us or against us attitude are displaying exactly that.

            5. Don’t want to get into a big political argument here, but I think I’m, just about, with Shard:
               of course some on the left defended him, but there were also a number of left-center folks making a WAY bigger deal about a stupid photo than they should have. The faux-outrage and virtue signaling was nauseating. Erodogan is a bad guy, but he’s not Hitler (if we had a Chinese footballer at Arsenal who took a photo with the increasingly autocratic Xi, would we all have a collective fit over that?), and, lest we forget, his regime is still a NATO ALLY OF THE US, GERMANY, AND THE UK!

               https://www.google.com/search?q=erdogan+obama&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYla-4hJPdAhVykuAKHUniDugQ_AUICygC&biw=1238&bih=581&dpr=2#imgrc=A_68uz5H11JXUM:

               https://www.google.com/search?biw=1238&bih=581&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=ePmGW_r_GY65ggfqgKrYDw&q=erdogan+merkel&oq=erdogan+merkel&gs_l=img.3..0j0i30k1l9.7718.16353.0.16640.7.6.0.1.1.0.84.417.6.6.0….0…1c.1.64.img..0.7.419…0i67k1j0i8i30k1j0i5i30k1.0.yFtKHb-SYQs#imgrc=Zfr4jVXCFlff4M:

               https://www.google.com/search?biw=1238&bih=581&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=vfmGW8uZNsqk_Qbam52wCw&q=erdogan+may&oq=erdogan+may&gs_l=img.3..0j0i30k1j0i8i30k1j0i30k1j0i24k1l2.4392.73311.0.73606.28.12.16.0.0.0.278.1226.8j1j2.11.0….0…1c.1.64.img..2.22.692…0i67k1j0i5i30k1.0.TkD8fXCAQmc#imgrc=hbf4VcwNOGmIhM:

               Mesut Ozil is a footballer (of 100% Turkish heritage), not a statesman (and, for all we know, not necessarily that bright or politically informed). Not saying the photo wasn’t a mistake, or that he shouldn’t be criticized for it. But the over-the-top handwringing, from left and right and the mainstream media in general, was just silly.

            6. No, the criticism was justified. he played happy celebrity endorsement after german journalist Denis Yücel spent a year in isolation prison on some bogus terrorism charges was not cool. Also Erdogan repeatedly using his provocative visits for his campaign while also insulting any critical voice as Nazis didn’t go over too well. There is a lot of context and Ozil just playing ignorant over this is just ignorant on his part, he spent get a pass over this.

            7. I don’t see any “intellectually dishonest tw*ts” here, and “reductive drivel” may be the ungenerous way to describe arguments whose expression and attention to detail are, unfortunately, limited by the expectations and functions of the medium. In which case, we’re all guilty.

               There seem to be some templates for attacking people who make certain kinds of arguments, which are themselves as reductive as the arguments they purport to dismiss, though I’m aware that this will be an unpopular thing to say.

               Increasingly, what I have seen in the recent culture wars are tactics that are promiscuous in terms of their deployment by those leaning left or right. What riles people the most is the recognition of their own epistemes in those they dislike. I see this all the time now, and I’d be happy to elaborate if anybody’s interested.

               I think we should consider what we’ve gained but, maybe, more importantly, what we’ve lost by giving up ideas in favor of identity/ideology, as Shard suggested. In many ways, that trade-off (I’m happy to provide examples), ironically, waters down and unnecessarily complicates the social justice project that most people on the right and left would support (when they weren’t obsessing over the phrase “social justice”).

            8. [sorry, “reductive drivel” refers to a comment below…I probably should have replied to Doc’s response]

         2. That was uncalled for, Claude. Some might say your use of female genitalia as a put-down reveals something about your prejudices! I don’t want to get into whether that’s misogyny, just pointing out how easy it is to make someone look bad in today’s nicey-nice pseudo-politically correct “I only care as long as it helps me look good” world which is how I’m reading what Shard has to say. Ironically, nobody is whiter than white, as the saying goes. That said, I’m just putting down my vote for collegiality. You don’t agree with Shard, never have, and that’s fine. If you can’t be nice about it then please just leave it at that.

            1. Disagree; there’s a tendency to illegitimize the left if they aren’t uniformly to the man on time perfect at all times in every way on every issue, and if they aren’t, then they all must be full of it. When this is called out as bogus the refrain is always, “well OF COURSE I didn’t mean everyone, geez, you’re getting at worked up and OBVIOUSLY it wasn’t…”

               It’s a garbage tactic used often to backpedal in bad faith. That’s what the above looked to me.

               CLAUDEIVAN appears to be sick of it as well.

            2. ralph77, the left doesn’t like to be delegitimized? That’s fairly rich if you ask me. I think the human condition is to legitimize when it suits us and delegitimize when it suits us. We all wear different hats but we all behave the same way; we want what we want and our brains create the rest. It’s not a left/right, you/me thing. We all do it. So don’t act like it’s just “the left” which is on the receiving end of poor treatment. It’s politics, friend.

            3. “I think the human condition is to legitimize when it suits us and delegitimize when it suits us. We all wear different hats but we all behave the same way; we want what we want and our brains create the rest. It’s not a left/right, you/me thing. We all do it. So don’t act like it’s just “the left” which is on the receiving end of poor treatment. It’s politics, friend.”

               This is reductive drivel pretending to be profound. You’re not above anything adding “friend” there. This is on me for involving myself the way I did, that’s my bad. But, you know better than to deflect with relativistic nothing matters there is no truth talk.

            4. ralph

               “there’s a tendency to illegitimize the left if they aren’t uniformly to the man on time perfect at all times in every way on every issue, and if they aren’t, then they all must be full of it.”

               You’re full of it when you say THIS because this was never the criticism. The criticism, such as it was, was that the left prioritized playing politics over the photo, over protecting Ozil from the racists. If you think this didn’t happen, note someone in this very comments section feels uncomfortable supporting ozil because of said photo. It did happen, Ozil felt it happned that he was criticized for the photo (and racists used this to further their agenda as well) and saying that it wasn’t every single leftie who did this is an anaemic counter-argument. Because that was never the assertion in the first place. You imagine there’s a walkback because you imagine that was the charge, or that is the only way it is a justified charge. Thinking that the left has to have a uniform voice and only then can it be criticised is the same accusation you throw at me, but in reverse.

            5. Shard,

               I appreciate the reply. What I truly think is, when possible, we shouldn’t be speaking in such broad terms about one-another, it’s expedient, but it causes problems.

               “The criticism, such as it was, was that the left prioritized playing politics over the photo, over protecting Ozil from the racists. ”

               If we add the word “some” to “the left” then I probably wouldn’t have responded. I fell into this trap myself by not qualifying my original statement better.

               I might have gone too far with the Dr already and there’s probably no way back with him. I’ll take that on the chin.

               A good day to you both

            6. It’s a nice thought Ralph, and thanks for your polite response., I think sometimes the meaning has to be gathered rather than taken from the exact words.

               When we talk about racism on the far right, was it every single one of them that decided to say Ozil was a goatf*****? No. To then say this accurately you would have to say one person on the far right said this. It’s accurate, and yet, it doesn’t accurately reflect the proper importance or import of the issue.

               So when I say ‘the left’, which is a ‘broad tent’ (I never meant otherwise) instead of saying some on the left, I am giving importance to the position rather than saying this applies absolutely to everyone who comes under that umbrella.

               See if I say some on the left attacked Ozil for this photo, it seems that he was generally well protected in this regard and from the racists. But I feel that this is not true, and Ozil seems to feel the same way. Hence the use of the words. Inaccurate, but accurate, and such is the wonder of language.

            7. “I think sometimes the meaning has to be gathered rather than taken from the exact words.”

               Well, of course, but please then extend me the same courtesy if I ever again refer to “the right.”

            8. Ralph

               Of course. I said the same about the right too. Too often the right wingers in my country get away with just this..It wasn’t us who said this outrageously racist thing. Just one person from an affiliated ‘non-political’ organisation. You aren’t reporting this accurately.

               Despite what you might think, I don’t consider myself on the right. Just usually, in the right. 🙂

            9. Reading back I never even used the words, “the right,” but I guess it was implied? I’d counter only to a degree, but clearly that’s enough in context.

            10. Ralph, I wish I could say you were the first to come at me hard even on this most congenial of online forums. There’s something about the way I write that tends to provoke a venomous riposte, and it’s something I want to understand about myself because it doesn’t happen “in real life” but has been a recurring theme online. For your purposes, I don’t really care what our relationship is, so you can say whatever you want. My opinion of you based on your own words is another matter entirely but I have no reason to publicize that.

         3. Grrr. F*** Glenn Greenwald. I have no problem with the Intercept, I do have a problem with a puported journalist using his Twitter account to attack others when he knows the information on which his takedown is based, is false.

4. I have stopped following Bayern because of this BS. They’ll let people of non-german heritage or non-whites play, so long as they act white. But as soon as things go south, they point the finger at the ‘immigrant.’ Hoeness is a German version of Trump, except he’s been convicted as a criminal. It’s a cautionary tale for the US that Hoeness returned to his role without much pushback. Trump will do the same, undoubtedly one day.

5. I’ve spoken about this and related issues at length on this blog, at far greater length than I have dared anywhere else including my own house. I don’t think anyone needs any further exponentiation of the Ozil situation and the harms of racism in society. Instead, let me spend a minute to whitesplain (I want to vomit all over myself every time I hear that word) why I think this issue has us twisted like a pretzel. For the Ezra Kleins of the world, and apparently for you, Tim, we cannot even have a conversation about race before first admitting that we are racist. I think that’s a sort of Calvinist fundamentalism, of being born with a stain on your soul, which is rightfully rejected by the majority of whites. Why whites? Because we’re the only ones being asked to admit to being racists, even though it’s well known that racism doesn’t have a color. Doesn’t matter. In this country: white=racist. Deny that and you’re a racism denier. Deny racism and you might as well be a criminal. Therefore: white=racist=criminal. And I wonder why there are so many angry whites who get more angry the more of this BS they hear? Yet, it’s other whites who are most aggressively pushing this agenda, whites who have presumably joined the choir of sanctimony and are quite happy to place people in the “racist” bucket upon the slightest provocation or disagreement. Perhaps this stems from their annoyance that other whites aren’t quite ready to cover themselves in schadenfreude as they are? I don’t know. I do know it’s gone too far and that IS the experience of most whites in developed nations who ARE privileged, ARE aware of their privilege and ARE good people but DO NOT believe that they should be ashamed of themselves merely for being from the same genetic pool as other people who have been or even are racists. Exhibit A is the treatment someone like Sam Harris received for trying to talk about race based on data and inference rather than simply decry it from the pulpit like everyone else. I’ve been listening to his podcasts for a long time and if this man is racist then I am a cave man. He is trying to talk about this important topic in a completely different way, in a way that I believe it should be talked about, and he is getting absolutely skewered for it. I don’t get it. I never will. It’s just the way of the world and I have accepted it. But keep your labels off of me. I am who I am because of the choices I’ve made, not because of my genetic background.

   1. Hey Doc, don’t besmirch Calvinism’s good name with that comparison!

      1. (that’s a joke, by the way)

         1. I got it bud. Thanks for your support.

   2. Doc I would say you are not wrong exactly but you miss the point.

      You seem to think of racism as a thing inside, a belief, a feeling, an opinion, something one would be conscious of. In that case of course it would drive you nuts to be accused of racism all the time because you’re simply not. You would know if you were.

      But that misses the point that racism is also systemic and whites benefit from that system. This is what Tim refers to I think. Note that if something is systemic it doesn’t even need any white people to ‘feel’ or act racist (although plenty do). We can all just go about our day, enjoying our advantages, while feeling nothing but well-disposed to people of every creed and colour. Meanwhile this advantage is all one-way. That’s why it makes little sense to talk of racism as something that all races have. That’s true in the sense of racism as a feeling, but not in the sense of racism as a system from which white people benefit at the expense of other races.

      One look at comparative outcomes and opportunities for blacks and whites should make it impossible to deny that racism is structural and systemic.

      UNLESS that is you try to argue that there is some inherent, probably genetic, heritable inferiority in the black population such as lower IQ. Which is where Sam Harris comes in.

      And this is where you are just wrong, sorry. Harris has promoted and discussed the work of Charles Murray who whose claims have been thoroughly debunked by geneticists, statisticians and sociologists. I mean, to the point where its apparent that Murray and Harris don’t seem to know what heritability even means. Harris is a smart man. He claims that he is not an expert in the field and he’s only discussing reasonable ideas. However when the actual experts in the field have been yelling at you that you’re wrong, and especially if you truly are the champion for truth, evidence, science and reason that you claim to be, (he isn’t), you should drop it instead of claiming that you are being censored or bullied by the PC brigade.

      I know this comment is likely to make you feel frustrated because you’re getting lectured once again that you’re just a racist white dude, and therefore I’m also making your point for you. For what it’s worth I don’t think you’re racist and that’s really not what I’m trying to say.

   3. “Guilty of being white” – Minor Threat.

      Here’s the thing that you’re doing that is wrong: we are all racist. Every one of us. That said, the point isn’t for you to admit personal guilt, though I have no problem if you do and wouldn’t even hold it against you as i’m certain that you have had a racist thought and probably even committed discrimination based on race.

      I find myself thinking racist thoughts, committing acts of sexism, and generally acting from a position of privilege all the time. It’s how I was raised, I’ve said that many times before.

      The point is that the system is racist. You are a part of that system and what I think many people are asking is that you accept your part in that system.

      This was true when the Hutus murdered the Tutsis, when the Americans murdered the Indians, when the Germans murdered the Jews, and when the Turks murdered the Albanians. Individuals committed racist acts, some of them unwittingly, some of them with glee, but it was the system which permitted and ultimately encouraged those acts. Systemic racism is what we see when all of the blonde-haired-blue-eyed, Bayern Munich players (past and present), rally around the family and say the exact same line “there is no racism here.”

      Once you admit that the system is racist, the point of this article I wrote, then you have to ask yourself what’s your role in that system? What do you want to be in that system?

      Right now the position I see you taking is that it’s deeply unfair for you to be labeled as a racist. I understand that sentiment. It sucks to be called names. But the system is still objectively racist here in America. The system is objectively oppressing black citizens. And while it sucks to be called racist it sucks a whole lot more to be shot to death in front of your child at a traffic stop because you had a tail light out.

      So for me, I don’t mind if people call me racist. I have been an actively racist person, spewing hate, and discriminating against many varieties of people who I thought were beneath me. I choose not to do that anymore. I choose to use my voice instead to stand up against the racist systems in the United States and do the very least that can to dismantle the systemic racism here. That means both the racism within myself and within the system.

      1. Genuine Questions for you, Tim:
         1. What does “accept your part in that [racist] system” mean, exactly? If that means, accept you are a racist *simply in virtue of belonging to the system* (which is, after all, entirely outside all of our control), then I join Doc in calling foul; or else, if accepted as true, that means we’ve just changed the meaning of the term ‘racist’ (as it’s applied to individuals), which I don’t think does anyone any favors.

         That “we are all racist” (or at least most of us) may well be true–as you’ve said, we’ve all thought prejudiced thoughts against members of other races, at least–but it’s a separate point. The points at issue are (a) whether it’s true the “system” is racist (and to what degree), and (b) whether being involved in the system necessarily makes the individual a racist. On (a) I say “yes” (though perhaps less so than some claim, and more so than others admit), but on (b) I (and Doc) say “no way,” at least not if ‘racist’ is going to have something remotely approximating its original usage/meaning.

         2. What do you mean that individuals committed racist acts “unwittingly”? I think this gets to the heart of the points raised above.

         3. You say, “And while it sucks to be called racist it sucks a whole lot more to be shot to death in front of your child at a traffic stop because you had a tail light out.” No doubt this is true, but what, if anything, is the necessary relationship between the two? You seem to be implying that Doc’s unwillingness to be labeled a racist simply based on his demographic info is somehow implicated in the ongoing injustice towards African Americans by the police, that that unwillingness on his part is actually directly contributing to the problem. This logical leap strikes me as not only offensive, but as a wild non sequitur. Such insinuations are also extremely counterproductive to actually fighting systemic racism, because they demonize, and thereby further alienate, more-or-less decent and ordinary people that the left should really be trying to get on its side if it’s serious about addressing the country’s structural injustice issues.

         1. PFO:

            I think points 1 and 3 are really well made, and speak to some of the ways that arguments being made about r*cism, equivalence, and proportion need to be more thoughtful, and I include myself in that critique (I can recognize the errors in logic when they’re pointed out to me, but I’m often baffled when trying to point them out in the first place). If anything, some of the positions espoused concerning implicit/unwitting/unintentional/systemic r*cism too often highlight a population that is good at making claims, but not so good at understanding how syllogistic reasoning and evidence work, which in itself calls for greater education, prudence, and generosity. Truth, facts, and reasoning matter, and when any one of those are compromised, the project of social justice is compromised as well.

            I’d like to add a bit to point 2, which may or may not accord with how you meant it (though I’d like to hear either way). Problems with “unwitting” and “systemic” r*cism occur when silences or absences are filled with agendas rather than proof (insofar as a distinction is possible). An example: if a hiring decision chooses a white candidate over a black candidate, is the decision-making process r*cist (an example of systemic r*cism)? Maybe (some would say “yes” unequivocally). But let’s say a review of that process did not find any examples of explicit r*cist language or action in the deliberations. How would we decide “yes” instead of “maybe” or even “no”? If the evidence for “yes” is a generalized assumption of r*cism for reasons of history, then everybody in that process is denied both agency and humanity. And, if the evidence for “yes” is a generalized assumption of r*cism for reasons of innate r*cism (anthropological or sociological bases), then we are left with the uncomfortable (for some) possibility that all pejorative or accusatory claims of r*cism are motivated rather than true, since one can claim (accepting that premise) that a tendency to accuse one r*ce of discriminating against another is the result of r*cist perceptions, and that works for and against any one r*ce.

            But my sense is that nobody cares about addressing those grey areas or questions. I get it. There’s a lot of anger and hurt, and no one can argue someone out of those feelings. What’s needed is kindness. I’d like to give it. I’d also like to know how to do it while remaining fair, wise, and just. Any advice?

            1. Yeah, all good thoughts. Not any advice to add right now, off the top of my head. Fwiw, I was asking question 2 just because I was curious about the answer; not because I had a long response waiting. I don’t deny unequivocally that you can be racist “unwittingly,” just think that sort of claim should be handled with caution and examined with rigor, not bandied about. For the most part, I start from the assumption that if we’re talking about racism as applicable to individuals (as opposed to cultural structures, institutions, etc), then that must involve racist mental states actually dwelling somewhere in their psychology, in such a way that at some point it actually makes some sort of accessible difference to their subjective experience.

               And in case someone plays the “implicit bias” card at this point, let me just say that no doubt implicit bias is a real phenomenon, but much of the research on it, and the way it’s been used across a wide range of academic disciplines to justify sweeping conclusions about various social groups, is controversial, at best, and increasingly debunked, at worst.

            2. It’s hard. I’m sure the charge of racism gets thrown about by people when what they are complaining about is not at all racially motivated.

               But racism is also rarely overt, which is why this stuff is difficult.

               Personal story if it helps to illustrate – my better half is non-white. All the time I’ve known her she has been disproportionally upset by small slights / rudeness from wait staff, check-in people, shop assistants, bus drivers etc. Stuff that I never even pay attention to. I just went ahead and assumed she was a bit oversensitive to that kind of thing. It took me literally 10 years of being married to her to realize that there was a pattern. She just straight up gets less politeness and respect than I do, from both men and women. It’s by no means everyone, but it happens almost every day. She’s had a lifetime of that, and while it’s absolutely certain that most of those people were just having a bad day, and for most of them race never entered their heads, once I saw it, it was impossible to unsee it.

               And one of the worst things is that it’s subtle, so she never knows for sure if that woman was a bit unhelpful because of racism, or if it was totally innocuous. The times she has received outright racial abuse she’s at least been able to respond in kind, write that person off as one of life’s a-holes and move on.

               She never talks about it because it’s demeaning, and that makes it worse somehow.

               My point being that a) this goes on all the time, and b) if you’re white and have therefore never experienced it, it can go on right under your nose to your own wife and you can be totally oblivious for years.

            3. Very good comments, PFO, Greg, Serge, and LA.

               Greg, I know a bit about what your wife goes through. I deliberately don’t talk much if at all about my r*ce on this blog (for reasons I could make clear, if desired), but I’ll share that I’ve lived for long periods in six different countries (on four continents), each with different attitudes about how I look. I seem to fit in everywhere and nowhere all at once. I know what it means to wonder whether a slight is deliberate, unrecognized but real, or nothing at all.

               Living in America, as I do now, has probably been the strangest experience of all (though that’s partly because of when I’m living in America), even if prejudice and discrimination is the practice of every identity group living in the world, including my own. The reason it’s been strange is because I’ve started to feel uncomfortable with how some accusations are made, including by people I identify with politically. I have always considered myself left-leaning, s*cialist, and a supporter of m*lticulturalism (can’t be too careful on Tim’s site!). I feel most comfortable and safe when I’m surrounded by people of all kinds of r*ces and ethn*cities (so yeah, I like cities).

               My issue with the “everyone is r*cist” phrase is not because it isn’t true, but because of how it tends to be strategized in this day and age, mainly, it seems, to negatively charge certain subjectivities and actions in those situations when the character and motivations of those subjectivities and actions are unknown, uncertain, silent. (This has been happening with gender for a long time now.)

               “Everyone is r*cist” in a culture that values integrity and connection is an opportunity for grace and self-correction. “Everyone is r*cist” in a culture of suspicion — when I know what you really think, whether you are aware of it or not — is an opportunity for division and feelings of victimization on all sides (along with arguments about who gets to feel a victim and in what measure, as we’re seeing nowadays). “Everybody is r*cist” is true in both cultures, but its use and effect is very different. We live mostly in the latter, and it’s observable whether we’re talking about r*ce, g*nder, class, government, corporations, or employers.

               Obviously, we can’t and shouldn’t return to a time of naivete, assuming best intentions in all, but we seldom consider the costs of living with and at times actively creating a culture of suspicion. Some have argued it was a contributing factor to Trump’s win, though I can’t pretend to be informed on that. What I would say is that the politicization of identity in the 21st-century has made us more suspicious of one another, less willing to get along, more fearful. Perhaps my very statement is a symptom of it, and perhaps someone will come along and tell me that they know it is, whether I believe it or not. Whatever the case, I do believe things will get better in the coming decades, but the reasons for this belief, and what I imagine it will look like, are matter for another post.

               Indeed, this is too long now, and I have work to do. Appreciate the chance to engage with you all on this complicated topic.

            4. I’ll try to summarize the post I wrote earlier that was unacceptable to the site (it may appear later, depending on Tim’s executive powers).

               “Everyone is racist” needs the proviso that “not every interaction between different races is racist.” Unfortunately, that proviso is itself too often treated as inherently racist, which prevents real interaction from occurring.

               “Everyone is racist” may be true, but it performs different functions depending on the culture. In a culture where connection and integrity are valued, it can lead to grace and self-correction. In a culture where suspicion is valued, it can lead to entrenched difference. In 21st-century America, it’s the latter that dominates, and the proof is in the extent to which we claim to know that people hold sinister beliefs that they are not aware of, and to which difference is always and already a matter of power. Until difference is the occasion to speak about connection, a hermeneutics of suspicion will only continue to create fear, anger, victimhood (including arguments about who should feel the most victimized), and polarization amongst differing subject positions.

         2. PFO –
            “The points at issue are (a) whether it’s true the “system” is racist (and to what degree), and (b) whether being involved in the system necessarily makes the individual a racist.”

            Point a is an issue upon which there seems to be agreement. But I don’t think point b is the one truly at issue. Allow me to suggest it’s more nuanced. “Being involved” is unavoidable in the US. You are involved in the system if you are a citizen. The actual points at issue, are: “Do you fail to recognize the injustice and inequity of the system as it pertains to race?” and secondly, “if you do recognize the problem, but fail to act, are you complicit?” (i.e. is silence equalt to consent?) This seems to me the point of departure between what Tim and others have been espousing and what Doc et al have countered.
            Racism, because it’s such a loaded word, implying an active effort to deny or discriminate based solely or race. And that’s not what many or even most people in our country do. What many are guilty of, is failing to accept that there are flaws inherent in our system that create unfair advantages and, in some cases, life-threatening situations for (primarily) non-whites and females. “The policeman was doing the best he could” refrain that’s heard so often after the killing of an innocent african american comes to mind. If one cannot identify and denounce these inequalities, that’s a terrible moral failure. Some label this racism. And whether it’s motivated by race, deep denial or a desire to maintain the status quo, it’s a big part of the problem. The second issue is whether those who DO recognize the injustice take action to remedy it. Again, there are those who would label lack of explicit remedial effort as racist. I think this is what many find troubling or offensive. If you were not Schindler, were you a Nazi? If you did not march with Martin Luther King, were you a Klansman?
            We should all be courageous trailblazers, ready to risk all to right injustice. In reality, that’s a high bar to set to avoid being called “racist.” And the social justic movement shoots itself in the foot when it conflates lack of action with racism. But having the courage to act, even if it’s teaching your children to recognize the problems, or speaking out against it in an Arsenal forum, is something that’s incumbent on those that are aware of the problem.
            So while I sympathize with those who take umbrage at being called racist for not using every ounce of their being to fix the problem, I do think failing to recognize the problem in the first place is perhaps the more egregious failing, and which likely makes one vulnerable to being labelled racist.

            1. Very nicely put! I’m on that side, really. I’m a racist but a subtle racist. I have the proverbial minorities friends, I rejoiced when Barack was elected, I educate my three daughters trying (and succeeding, I think) to make them not racist, I have given up any idea that whites were genetically superior a long time ago …
               But, if asked if I would approve if one of those wonderful daughters would marry an Arab, for instance, I would say yes, but. Yes but he cannot be a hard line Muslim, yes but he should have a nice job,… Basically, I think (but I don’t say) yes, if he is completely westernized. Obviously, if I was asked if my daughter could marry a white guy, I would answer with an unqualified yes, even wondering why the question was ever asked.
               Other example, if I discover my car window broken one morning, I immediately form the mental image of a Moroccan guy running away with my possessions. This mental image is backed by statistics but also fed by prejudice.
               I’m a racist.
               And even if I’m not complicit with the system, even if I modestly try to fight a small battle here or there, I’m a racist.
               And indeed everyone in my situation should realize that because the addition of all those small individual arrogances is unbearable and allows the system to perpetuate itself.
               Racism is linked to economics. We feel superior (and we feel that others are inferior) because we dominate economically, hence culturally and militarily. We won. Our civilization is therefore superior. It is the slight arrogance of the supporter of a high standing club (Arsenal?!) vis-á-vis the supporter of a small club (I thought I would add a football related example). And when whites are confronted to other races on white territory, those other races are very often represented by poor immigrants, who will have to start their journey at the bottom of the social scale. That obviously also feeds this sense of superiority. I do think that if the situation was reversed, we would be the victims of racism. Not that this exonerates us whites.
               On Ozil, my opinion is heavily influenced by the fact that I’m convinced Erdogan is a dangerous, power hungry, cynical dictator. This photo should never have been taken. So, in my eyes, Ozil had to be criticized for that. But for nothing else.
               I love this blog!

            2. LAGUNNER,

               “But I don’t think point b is the one truly at issue. Allow me to suggest it’s more nuanced”
               –Of course. These are the inevitable limitations of the blog comment section medium.

               “What many are guilty of, is failing to accept that there are flaws inherent in our system that create unfair advantages and, in some cases, life-threatening situations for (primarily) non-whites and females. “The policeman was doing the best he could” refrain that’s heard so often after the killing of an innocent african american comes to mind.”
               –But surely there are plenty of cases in which the policeman *was* doing the best he could, just as there are many, many cases in which that’s not true, right?

               “The second issue is whether those who DO recognize the injustice take action to remedy it. Again, there are those who would label lack of explicit remedial effort as racist. I think this is what many find troubling or offensive. If you were not Schindler, were you a Nazi? If you did not march with Martin Luther King, were you a Klansman?”
               –That’s correct. I think the obvious answers to your two questions about Schindler and King are “no” and “no”. But even more important is the point that we don’t (in 2018 US) live in a society with as much widespread and all-powerful structural injustice as 1930’s Germany or segregated Alabama. Not even close. Doesn’t mean there aren’t serious injustices all around us. Doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye because things “aren’t that bad.” But what’s lost in the shrill moralizing and virtue signaling is any sense of realistic proportion. So while it’s easier to suggest that not speaking out as a white Alabaman in favor of King, e.g., made one actually complicit in the racist status quo, it’s much, much less plausible to suppose that not jumping on board with every last detail of the 2018 social justice bandwagon means you’re actively propping up a racist system. “If you’re not (actively working) against them then you’re for them (and as guilty as them)” may have made sense in Nazi Germany, but there’s just a lot more gray area in America today. Things are, as you’ve said, just a lot more nuanced than that.

               But for the record I agree with you that we all ought to recognize that there is systemic racism and other forms of structural injustice in American/Western society, and that after recognizing that, the onus is on all of us to try to do something–in our own modest ways–to make the system better. What I was objecting to was just the claim/insinuation that failure to do the absolute maximum to fight/blow up/complain about the system thereby makes one a racist, and in particular that FAILURE TO ADMIT ONE IS A RACIST SIMPLY BY BEING WHITE AND “PRIVILEGED” AND “PART OF THE SYSTEM” THEREBY MAKES ONE A RACIST. I think this last claim, in particular, is utter hogwash, and dangerous.

            3. Ugh. Just wrote a long post that disappeared into the ether. Perhaps it’s just getting the once over from Tim’s Spamatron. 😐Must remember to copy and paste!

               Anyway, really appreciate your comments PFO, LA, Greg, and Serge.

            4. I appreciate all the thoughtful discussion here but for me PFO hits the nail on the head with this:

               FAILURE TO ADMIT ONE IS A RACIST SIMPLY BY BEING WHITE AND “PRIVILEGED” AND “PART OF THE SYSTEM” THEREBY MAKES ONE A RACIST.

               That will never be OK with me, and I don’t care how much the issue is contorted. I didn’t choose to be born white, I didn’t choose to grow up with my privilege, and I will not be punished for simply existing. Nor will I hijack my life’s purpose by crusading in the name of eradicating institutional racism. I did not create it and I am not responsible for it. I have my own life to live. I will judge myself for the choices I make, try my best to be a decent human being, and let the rest be as it may. I was dealt my hand, as we all were, and I will continue to make the best of what I was given in the service of others, regardless of their demographics.

   4. I don’t think Sam is a racist. That interview with Klein, however drove me bonkers. Very Bad Wizards (an excellent podcast that blew up thanks to a conversation with Sam about free will) have a very good episode explaining why 1) Measured IQ differences between races are real and 2)why these measured differences don’t allow anyone to make valid inferences about average intelligence differences between groups. There really aren’t intelligence differences between racial groups. My big issue with Sam is that at no point in the conversation with Murray did he attempt to add that necessary context when talking about iq test differences. He opened himself up to (unjustified) criticism that he’s a racist. Klein went too far, but Sam had an opportunity to give important context about why the IQ data doesn’t actually tell us anything about average intelligence differences between groups, but he was so laser-focused on his crusade against identity politics, that he looked like he was digging in and defending a position he never took. Also, he claimed he wasn’t subject to identity politics “only other people do identity politics.”(not his actual quote) I like Sam, but he’s not infalkibke, and I think he missed a great opportunity to defend the truth, while informing a great number of people and disempowering a harmful idea, an idea that’s most harmful due to a lack of understanding, not purposeful deployment as weapon.

      1. As this discussion has shown, it’s good to be careful and I wouldn’t accuse Sam Harris of being racist. But I would accuse him of having unconscious biases that he refuses to examine, and of helping to perpetuating harm to “minorities”. I have two kids who will grow up identifying as Muslim. According to Sam Harris that makes them worthy of discrimination, suspicion and different treatment to an atheist non-Muslims like their dad. Sam Harris’ arguments are helping to make the world a more illiberal, hostile and potentially dangerous place specifically for my kids, and that’s not going to win him any kind of respect from me.

         1. I don’t think that’s his position on Islam. I think he would like for the world to simply acknowledge that a large percentage of practicing Muslims, particularly in Muslim predominant nations, are not, in fact, tolerant of other creeds, of womens’ rights, of gay rights, etc etc. That’s the great elephant in the room that he is trying to get all of us to acknowledge. Your kids can be Muslim and be none of those things, and nobody would argue with that or should suspect them of that based on their faith. BUT, it’s blind to pretend like it’s not different in Muslim majority nations. Everyone knows this, but it’s head in the sand time when it seems to border on racial issues.

         2. Greg, I think SH’s stance on Islam is simply an exasperation that the world at large refuses to acknowledge the realities of religious and social tolerance (or lack thereof) in large swathes of many Muslim majority nations simply because we are afraid to sound racist or discriminatory. It’s not racist to quote statistics about Muslim majority communities. It doesn’t imply that all Muslims are intolerant. But that’s the backlash that Harris is facing for daring to speak up. For me, he is confronting a problem few others dare to speak about for fear of receiving the same treatment.

            1. I am loath to talk about personalities that I know little about. The only thing I know of him was a debate between him and a journalist, Chris Hedges and as such I’m open minded on him.

               But… In this interview, Harris used statistics to push the idea that a vast majority of Muslims support suicide bombing as long as it’s in defense of Islam.. Now, that just screams bad stats, poor/motivated questionnaire design to me. (What does defense of Islam even mean? What context and time frame was this asked in? What were the questions around it?) He tried to correct for that by saying that even if instead of the 80% quoted, it’s only 10% that’s still over a 100 million people. (There’s so many of them!!)

               What’s worse is he said these and such stats are more important than a journalist’s experience of 15 years in the Middle East because that’s just anecdotal because it was pointed out to him that his claim in his book, that mothers in Gaza do not mourn for their dead children because Islam leads them to believe they are going to paradise, was nonsense and borderline racist. (Dehumanising)

               Sober sounding and statistical questioning apart. The impression I carried away was that he was fear mongering by selective use of stats to push his anti-religious agenda. And worse, arguing that to then protect ourselves (and them) from this outrageously illogical, but supremely dangerous threat, we would be within our rights to go in and install dictatorships which we can control. Like that would be the humane and lawful and intelligent thing to do.

               I do not know if he’s a racist or an intellectual apologist for war, but from what I saw, he’s at least dishonest because despite his claim, he’s not going where the stats take him. It’s taking the stats where he wants to go, ie all religion is stupid, but Islam in particular is lethal.

               PS. I’d like to add that people give religion way too much importance when they assign it a political/social impact as a whole. The region and its history plays a larger part than a religion which in any case is interpreted and practiced in different ways by different people.

               And religion/philosophy are often taken more literally than they are meant by someone who doesn’t ‘know’ them (knowing as different to intellectually understanding)

            2. When I said ‘dehumanising’, I meant it dehumanises them by supplanting their individuality with a literal interpretation of their religion, which they may at times (be forced to) espouse for political reasons, or even use as a personal salve. So, on second thought, this seems like a very racist argument to me. (That is not the same as saying Harris is racist btw)

               It is also dehumanising to give primacy to statistics over actual human interaction. It isn’t intellectually honest to dismiss the latter, because that is supposed to inform the use of stats in the first place.

            3. Oh dear, now we’re crossing into the hinterland of religious values. While I did not hear the pod that you reference, think it’s very important to note that Harris did not directly say the things you believe he supports; that’s the difference between perception and possibility. It’s possible he has an implicit or even explicit anti-religion bias; however, it sounds like your conviction on that front stems from your view of one set of statistics that seemed offensive to you, so it’s important to recognize your own biases on that before passing judgment on his. I also want to point out that like it or not, he didn’t invent these statistics. It sounds awful, but some realities in the world are awful. Is the right move to simply dismiss it because we don’t like it and therefore balme it on some bias that we are hanging around the reporter’s neck? Just a different possibility from the one you suggest, and one that I find more plausible If I’m honest. I do not know the whole truth any more than you do.

            4. think it’s very important to note that Harris did not directly say the things you believe he supports

               https://youtu.be/cZJ1g9LTwMs?t=3488

               It was on youtube, way back in 2007.

               I put the time from where Chris Hedges quotes from Sam Harris’ book about how to deal with the Muslim world. The bit about mothers of suicide bombers in Gaza not mourning for their children because of a belief in paradise was a little before that.

               I don’t dismiss all of Harris’ ideas in the video, nor all the statistics. And although I mentioned why some statistics were problematic, the issue I had with him was his interpretation and call for action on the basis of those stats. He is very much arguing for what I said he was for.

               And again, I stress that I do not say THIS is what he is. Maybe he’s got more nuance to it. Maybe he’s changed some of his views. But here, in 2007, he was arguing for the Muslim world (by which he seems to mean the middle east, which is inaccurate on its own) to be either isolated or invaded and kept in check, because we cannot be sure they won’t just nuke us.

            5. Also on dismissing stats. It’s not about not liking it. It doesn’t make sense to me. What the stats say is entirely inconsistent with my perception of reality. Sure, maybe my perception is wrong and that’s definitely something we always need to be careful about. But when Harris uses stats to make such a HUGE claim that over a 100million people would be ok with blowing themselves up because of and in defense of their religion, I think they are well open to scrutiny and argument before even arguing the theory he forms on their basis.

               And you know, sometimes, simply asking the question is enough to cause such answers. Just as an example. My (Hindu) friend was telling me a story about how he and his friends asked a Muslim friend of theirs whether he supported India or Pakistan in cricket. And that after many times of doing this, the Muslim guy ‘admitted’ that he supported Pakistan. Aha! From the horse’s mouth. Muslims support Pakistan and hence are traitors to India. But why was he asked in the first place? Maybe he supports them, or started to support them, because he’s made to feel alienated by this suspicion? Or maybe he just said it to shut them up about it. there’s many possible ways of interpreting his answer.

               Ok so only an anecdote. Maybe not even a proper example here. But I think while it is wrong to dismiss inconvenient statistics, such sweeping claims on the basis of answers to questionnaires are wrong too.

         3. Greg,

            In a comment that disappeared when I hit the “Post Comment” button, I mentioned that given my racial background I know something about what your wife has experienced, living here in the US and in other countries, and how it leads to frustrating bouts of guessing intentions. (It’s what some people call ‘micro-aggressions’ (it sounds inflammatory, doesn’t it???).)

            Anyway, here I want to address your comment about the Waking Up podcast. I tried to find the episode you refer to, and landed on one with an interview with an ex-Muslim named Sarah Haider. I gave it a listen over my lunch break, but only got 40 minutes in. So far, anyway, I don’t hear anything that describes what you said, but maybe he gets to it eventually, or maybe I’m listening to the wrong episode.

            Sam Harris is hit and miss with me. When he’s “miss” it’s usually because he doesn’t contextualize or frame a point in a way that might actually help his cause in terms of dealing with the abuse he gets from certain sections of his audience. In this episode, Sarah Haider did it for him (the framing) when she spoke about her support of religious freedom and feminism before addressing what Harris really wanted to talk about, which was the way that liberals and feminists get the hijab thing wrong.

            He has said a few things before that I consider wrong, but more often than not I think he’s well-intentioned, I appreciate when he challenges an assumption I’ve had, I like it when he invites guests that disagree with him, and that — regardless of my agreement or disagreement — he’s making points that force me to think more critically about what in my field is considered received wisdom / orthodox. Orthodoxy is or can very easily become an enemy to truth.

6. I am a bit split when it comes to this.

   I suppose a lot of players experience this type of racism. In his fantastic article (aided probably by a ghost writer), Lukaku also mentioned that when he wins with Belgium, he is their Belgian striker, and when they lose the match, he is an immigrant from Congo.

   But the thing is, I’m finding it hard to defend Ozil because deciding to take a picture with Erdogan made me lose some respect for him. It could be that it was all pre-arranged, perhaps you just can’t say “no” to a dictator, but being that this was the reason for the scandal in the first place, that for me was a stupid move by Mesut from the start.

   Second, I’m sure he believes that he was racially abused, but then again we are talking about a German team consisting Khedira, Boateng, Can, Mustafi, Podolski or Klose recently. They are not exactly SS Lazio and have always had a history of incorporating footballers from immigrant families, so all of a sudden to have their Player of the Year since 1997 so viciously racially abused that he decides to call it quits for me is a bit strange.
   Perhaps the fans call him names, but you can’t judge a nation just by the idiots it has.

   Third, I don’t buy that it’s just his lack of pashun that draws criticism, especially in the English press. For me, at Arsenal he is being paid very handsomely to contribute and influence the matches in which he plays and the stats back up the fact that he has not doing that for a while.

   David Silva or Kevin De Bruyne are also not exactly midfield destroyers, yet they were and still are crucial players in their team.

   All I’m saying is I believe that Ozil is slightly playing the prima donna card, which judging by the latest rumours surrounding him and Emery, could turn out to be a bigger reason for his actions recently than just shouting racism.

   1. Silva and De Bruyne have also been playing in an extremely well-put-together, well-coached team. Arsenal, on the other hand, have been largely dysfunctional, from back to front, for a good 2.5 seasons now. So the comparison is perhaps a bit unfair. Just saying…

      1. I know but my point is that when KDB or Silva assist or score, nobody goes: “Oh but they don’t make enough crunchy tackles”.
         If Ozil had more seasons like the one where he almost matched Arsenal assists record, I don’t think we would have been hearing so much criticism.

         1. Yes, and my point is that, maybe just maybe, if recent Arsenal had been less dysfunctional and more like Pep’s City, Ozil might have had more seasons like the one where he almost matched the assist record (it wasn’t just Arsenal’s record, but the PL’s, btw). Doesn’t entirely negate your criticism, just gives it context.

            1. Let’s see how he fares now with Auba and Laca, but I’m beginning to think that he is on a decline from which there is no turning back.

            2. If he gets the minutes, alongside Arsenal’s other best players, in anything resembling positions that suit him (so not at DM, lol), I would wager a pretty penny that you’re wrong about decline. But there’s no guarantee now that Emery’s going to accommodate him in his starting lineup going forward, so we may never know.

            3. PFO – if he gets the minutes is the big question. Does he fit in Emery’s system? And at whose expense? I also share Teampossible’s concern that Ozil is in decline, which pains me because he has been by far my favorite player to watch for some time. But he’s not without blame – even I can see the dreaded “body language” and mystery illnesses and injuries that so enrage his critics. Here’s hoping he finds his form, regains his place and goes on a tear that shuts up everyone, and makes me well up with tears of joy when he curls the impossible pass through 5 defenders to Auba in stride to take down Sp*rs.

7. Emob

   So Ozil should keep track of Turkish politics, and German politics, and geopolitics while also playing football for Arsenal and Germany, and then decide on the rights and wrongs of it all, before accepting an invitation from the OFFICE of the President of Turkey, a country to which he has ties as well?

   Right, very reasonable expectation from a professional athlete. Can’t be having him and respecting his choice to be apolitical. As if a photo means he endorses his policies and politics rather than just respects the country and her President (Do Turkey say ‘Her’ for country?)

   1. ….so, if a duck weighs less than he does, that means he is heavier than water, and

      THEREFORE

      He’s a witch!!

      1. I’m so confused by this. 🙂

         1. “She turned me into a newt!”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

            This scene always reminds me of the mob mentality on twitter.

            1. Haha. This is fantastic.

      2. Dr. Gooner, I remember you once slamming China and its people as being brainwashed on this forum some time back. As a person living in China (not Chinese though), I took offence at it as not all Chinese people are the same, especially in a population of 1.2 billion people. You then mentioned that having grown up in a communist country, you KNOW that’s how its like.

         I am just saying we are all prone to making sweeping ignorant remarks which come across as silly, even if they aren’t particularly related to race. Including an educated non-racist like you.

         1. Chris, you have a long memory because I cannot remember those comments. I apologize for offending you.

            1. An apology is not needed, but still accepted.

               I am a frequent lurker in these parts. And I groan a bit when the topic of racism comes up, but also find the Western hemisphere’s obsession with race peculiar.

               It’s almost impossible and UNNATURAL to be completely impartial to people of a different unfamiliar tribe to you. The early Asian philosophers recognised that and advocated for harmony and obedience to condition humans to fall into assimilation and social order, versus the Western notions of individuality and ego for self-actualisation (self-identification leads to tribalism, and thus racism).

               In this context, Asian Confucian philosophy has it right. The basic building block of a society is the family, followed by your community, town, province, country. Provide for your family first. Treat anyone outside your family with natural stranger danger but recognise that we are many cogs in a giant machine each doing our part in something greater.

               Hence, Asians tend to discriminate based on social class/role and wealth, rather than something as silly as skin colour. Example, the white English teacher on $2000 a month won’t get as much tail as the African businessman with the import/export business.

            2. I think that’s well said, Chris. I’ve always thought Asian religions and philosophies were far more healthy in the way that they are generally practiced by focusing on the internal first and foremost (from what little I understand of that) compared to the constant fear and suspicion of outsiders induced in its subjects by aspects of western religions. I always think when any group says: I have the single, only truth! Then that is a path to fear and discrimination.

            3. Chris,

               I have lived in two Asian countries in my life. Racism was alive and well in both countries, but it wasn’t talked about to the same degree as it is in the West. Some would say that’s a problem, not an occasion for celebration.

               In my experience, racism is very often accepted there without question, and I’ve seen the hurt it has caused to those are rejected socially for their race, those are denied citizenship on the basis of race, and those are denied jobs on the basis of race. And when I say “basis of race,” I don’t even mean micro-aggressions or the hidden, assumed, obscured behaviors. I mean a racial reason delivered explicitly and unapologetically.

               Also in my experience (since you brought it up) categories like “white” and “African” don’t always carry the same racialized freight in some Asian countries as categories like [insert: peoples from neighboring Asian countries with whom they have had recent or historical conflicts, and whom they consider different races].

            4. [apologies for the grammar mistakes…too early in the morning! I’d only like to add that my impression after living there was that it was easier both to be racist and not to obsess about it because the populations were so racially homogenous (perhaps I should say “insofar as they considered themselves as such,” since racial categorization is notoriously problematic)…again, just an impression]

   2. Oh come on. Geopolitics? How about just day to day politics? How about not playing dumb. I expect Thomas Müller not to do a photo op with the nazis of the AfD, and I expect Özil not to be a naive idiot and aftewrwards play dumb. A happy celebrity photo op with the running president on his campaign trail shortly before the election is NOT apolitical, that’s why these photos were made. Howe about he takes some good old fashoined responsibility for that.
      That doesn’t mean I “let” anyone abuse him. Just on practical level, what does it even mean when you say the left “let” the abuse happen?

      1. He has had photos taken with Erdogan on many occasions. It wasn’t an issue before. Can you tell me why? I mean since you follow politics so closely and all.

         Besides, equating the office of the President of his ‘second country’ to some neo Nazi is disingenuous and frankly, contemptuous.. What were the British PM and Queen doing meeting this neo Nazi, extending a state visit to him? Or maybe it’s just that they, and he, met the President of Turkey.

         Whether Erdogan uses that photo in his campaign is irrelevant. Ozil accepted an invitation from the Office of the President of Turkey to attend an event. If you, or any voter in Turkey, thinks this means he endorses the politics of Erdogan, that is on you and them. Ozil made no such claim and he bears no responsibility for your ‘naive’ beliefs.

         Just see where you’re expending your energy in this whole thing. Of course you believe racism is wrong and Ozil doesn’t deserve it. But your argument is about a freaking photo. A PHOTO.

         The racists attack Ozil for this very same photo. Your politics suggest Ozil, by not refusing this photo, supported a ‘near’ Nazi. Crucially, the actual neo-Nazis’ politics suggest Ozil’s support (which is your contention) shows Muslim Turks cannot be trusted to be loyal to Germany (and this is where geo-politics comes in, because Turkey is now in some ways opposed to Germany and vice versa.. Or else neither of these arguments would find political purchase).

         And that’s how the left decided to play their politics over Ozil and ‘let’ him be attacked. And this is exactly why such ‘illiberal’ liberalism is self defeating. All it achieved was strengthening the racist far right’s hand. But it made the liberals feel better about themselves and that’s what’s really important. (Yes, that last bit is me being uncharitable, but I’ve just lost patience with this inanity)

         1. I’d just like to add, this idea that seems to have caught on recently.. That any meeting with someone, quoting someone, or heaven forbid, finding something on which you are in agreement with them, means you are a supporter of theirs or endorse everything they do. Apart from being unfair, this is very dangerous.

            It suggests that talking is bad. That communication and understanding/accepting is the same as agreeing or doing. That finding common ground, making compromises is a betrayal of values.

            If unchecked, this is only going to lead to more wars. Social, and actual.

            1. I wonder which Erdogan’s highly controversial political and economic issues Ozil was in agreement with and which ones he was trying to influence changing.

               Out of curiosity I Googled Ozil/Erdogan pics and found half a dozen taken from different meetings over the years.
               Call me skeptical but but they all seem like self serving foto ops for both Ozil and Erdogan.

               Also, it’s seems to me a pretty straight forward proposition to distinguish between meetings of head of states , no matter how friendly or adversarial they might be, when complex international issues are at stake, and a simple self serving foto op between a politician and a celebrity.
               But perhaps Im wrong about this and Ozil was lobbying very hard for the release from prison all Erdogan’s political opponents.

            2. “It suggests that talking is bad. That communication and understanding/accepting is the same as agreeing or doing. That finding common ground, making compromises is a betrayal of values.”

               This is so important. We cannot find common ground while pointing at each other and saying YOU are the reason for racism, and if you disagree then you are racist too!

8. It’s very possible ozil may have taken that picture without any political attachments whatsoever, but from the mindset of someone who loves his country of birth.. I don’t see anything wrong in doing that.. I think the whole problem stems from trying to fix reasons as to why he did that.. there’s no place like home!! As for his performances on the pitch lately, I think we have to blame that on the whole team.. put him in same position as KDB, and you wouldn’t wanna face that team anyday!! I don’t see the need to use harsh words just cos you don’t support someone’s POV.. btw, I must confess, I learn a lot from this blog almost everyday!!

9. “Of course. I said the same about the right too. Too often the right wingers in my country get away with just this..It wasn’t us who said this outrageously racist thing. Just one person from an affiliated ‘non-political’ organisation. You aren’t reporting this accurately.
   Despite what you might think, I don’t consider myself on the right. Just usually, in the right.”

   This is exactly why I usually never comment on anything on the internet. Too much is unknown. Something, at this point lost, irked me. I don’t remember exactly what it was, and yet here we are. Pointless. I didn’t have fun.

   In person we could have had a much better discussion with a more productive back-and-forth, and in person it’s likely we would have realized we didn’t disagree, yada yada.

   1. Welp, I put that in the wrong place. My apologies for spamming this thread with my handle everyone.

10. I love Ozil…I dont want him running around making tackles and screening opposition runners. I want him to do what he does best and for Arsenal to play a couple of midfielders who let him do that. @%&* the German FA and the racists taking cheap shots at him

11. I generally refrain from responding on such posts that deal with ra*ism, hom*phobia, xen*phobia, or the like. Its because sometimes it sometimes leads to not so comfortable discussions on a wider forum, especially with many of us from different walks of life sporting different nationalities, race and religion. But today I want to share a few incidents from my own life. Just so you know, I’m not one to ever back off if provoked, and I do bite if cornered!

    To set context, I am Indian by birth and nationality, and have been fortunate to have received decent education and a few decent jobs that have taken me all over the world. I have been fortunate to live for some time in the US, UK as well as Germany.

    In India, being good-looking or “fair” or “white” is considered a privilege and I was raised in such a society (you should see the number of fairness cream ads all over on Indian television). I have seen biasness coming in from my grandparents who never enjoyed seeing me play a game of cricket or badminton with our domestic help’s children of my own age. I have seen the older generation complain to see that I had some “darker complexioned” friends. But a stubborn kid that I was, I didn’t care a fish’s t*t because my mom/dad always helped identify the right and wrong.

    As a kid who was sex*ally ab*sed by older boys at school, my private tutor, an uncle, etc I could never gather the courage to tell this to my own parents (my wife was the 1st person who I shared this horrible past of mine in detail) because when I complained to the student counsellor at my school, I was told it was because I was “fair looking” and didn’t resemble an Indian male. I was told I should not give “misleading signals” to people around me. I was made to understand because I was “white looking” I attracted trouble as a 10-year old. For some time, I felt this was alright and this was how it was meant to be, till I was old enough to understand what this meant. What I essentially am trying to say here is being “fair” and “white-ish” was aspirational and let people make undue advances.

    While living in Germany, I have countless incidents of being told “you are seated in the 1st class, the 2nd class is a few coaches down” without even looking at my ticket. Or being told “this jacket is very expensive” by a salesman at a high-end store. Or being turned down by bouncers at a nightclub because I wasn’t “appropriately dressed to come to a high-end nightclub” and then heading to a more culturally-diverse nightclub (Turkish by the way). I am not saying all Germans are racist, not at all. I have some truly great German friends who stood by me through some of the above incidents. What I am trying to say is that sometimes it’s tough for people to relate to what ra*ism stands for unless you truly gather the courage to see it through someone’s eyes who has experienced it. I am asking for tolerance, empathy and a bit of understanding and acknowledgement that ra*ism doesn’t exist and we need to fight it together and united.

    While living in the US and the UK, I have been “jokingly” called “slumd*g millionaire” or “k*fir” or asked if all of India is poor and lives in bud-huts and villages. Again, I don’t want to generalize an entire nation on the basis of some bafoons but what I am trying to say is that exists. Even at work, someone had the audacity to ask my fellow American colleague “is this Indian boy really reviewing your work, wow!” without even understanding that maybe I am qualified and experienced enough to do a certain job. Its sometimes subtle and sometimes not so subtle, but whats important is acknowledgement.
    I am by no means a saint, and have been guilty myself at times. But today I am more aware and I have been able to look within and acknowledge when I have been wrong and have tried to make amends where I could. I just want people to be able to acknowledge when something is wrong, and help put it right. It’s about awareness, acceptance, empathy and tolerance.

    I 100% stand by Ozil for the nightmare he has faced this past few months. That photo-op was wrong and he should have acknowledged that. But the barrage he has faced from all of the German media, DFB, Bayern, and the lack of any acknowledgement and support from his German NT colleagues has been appalling to say the least.

    This is why its important to accept and acknowledge that there is institutional ra*ism and work towards putting an end to it. It’s not a task that 1 individual can accomplish, but all of us as society need to be.

    Apologies to have to make you go through this essay, but something hit my nerve today and wanted to share. I can go on-and-on but will stop, and rather would request one and all to be compassionate towards people around you. Thank you.

    CYOG!

    1. Wow, thanks for sharing Rohit. A great read (I mean absorbing and well written, not ‘that’s great that that stuff happened’…obviously!).

    2. Hey, thank you for sharing that. It’s not always easy so I’d like to acknowledge that it’s great that you did. All the best.

       Not to take away from your experiences, but the story of the train in Germany is exactly one of the instances of racism I faced last year where two German men in business suits were like ‘This is first class’ when we boarded. My sister responded with ‘Yes..And..??’ So then they shut up and moved elsewhere. Maybe the racists among the Germans are just very proud of their trains? I have to say though, the idea of German efficiency took a huge hit with me on this journey. Train cancellations and delays all over the place. Almost hilariously against the stereotype.

12. Tom.

    You know full well your statement has nothing to do with anything I said about Ozil, nor the larger issue and dangers in the comment you replied to.

    But maybe a debate is about point scoring to you, in which case, you get a cheap point with an absurdity bonus thrown in.

13. Tim, one minor historical point- it was the Armenians (not Albanians) whom the Turks committed horrific genocide upon.

14. And then Prince Vladimir, son of the Dragon came to their rescue!!

    1. I assume that’s a reference to Vlad Dracul, aka Vlad Tepes aka Vlad the Impaler aka Bram Stoker’s Dracula? I have not heard that part of his story.

       1. Yes it is..lol

15. Top thread, people.

    To PFo and Doc, I can fully agree that anyone who claims you are necessarily racist because you are white is going way too far. Just like anyone who says you’re necessarily misogynist because you’re a man.

    Those are both very radical positions though, and I personally don’t think I know of anyone who would support either of them. But if it’s something you guys come across, OK.

    I do think though that the argument that we all have inherent, unconscious biases due to systemic racism / sexism is true, because it’s supported by evidence. For example, there’s a test online you can even take! Run by Harvard University!

    https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

    I took the test a while ago and I came up positive for unconsious racial bias. Does that make me “racist”? Some would say yes, some no.
    But getting a label correct is not really the important point. The point is that if I care about not being racist, I need to be aware that my bias puts me at risk of messing up from time to time.

    I think that’s the important part. Let’s not worry about if we are or are not racist. Let’s just all care about making sure that we’re not.

    On Sam Harris – it was not in the podcast, it was in his writing and interviews that I saw his support for profiling based on religion / race; several claims that he’s made about Muslims being particularly dangerous because of their religion; several mischaracterizations of the religion itself. I don’t have links right now sorry.

    1. Sure, I don’t disagree with the general sentiment. But the unconscious bias literature is extremely complex, controversial (as in, controversial among left-leaning, well-informed academics), and not remotely well-handled when it falls into the hands of the media and other disciplines outside of experimental psychology.

       I would dig up some links for you about this, but don’t have the time right now.

    2. Greg, believe it or not, I took that very implicit bias test years ago. I don’t even dispute that it’s accurate or that implicit bias is real. Of course it is! We all are attracted to things and people in which/whom we can see a part of ourselves. Isn’t that the most natural part of the human condition? What I ask you is what do I gain by having it impressed upon me that I have implicit bias? More importantly, what do others gain? Do we become a better society after we’re all aware of our implicit bias?

16. So we travel to Portugal, Ukraine and Azerbaijan for the EL. If we’re planning to play the youngsters, Reiss Nelson will not be among them. He’ll have CL football on loan at Hoffenheim. I wonder what the plan is.

17. Boom.

    http://www.espn.co.uk/football/arsenal/story/3617375/mesut-ozil-unai-emery-arsenal-bust-up-reports-not-true-source

    You think anyone–I’m especially thinking of Arsenal-supporting twitter personalities, fans, and “journalists” (not Tim)–is going to apologize, or at least retract/clarify their judgments, after all of the speculative and uncharitable cr*p that was written about Mesut and Emery last weekend?
    Nope.

    1. Mark Ogden is a moron. Like, I mean that in the literal sense of the word (and this is not a recently adopted opinion of mine):

       http://www.espn.com/soccer/club/arsenal/359/blog/post/3613397/mesut-ozil-a-waste-at-arsenal-and-a-problem-unai-emery-can-do-without

       Scott nails it here:
       https://twitter.com/oh_that_crab/status/1035567062574292992

18. I read through the article and comments with great sadness. I don’t have the gift of writing as a lot of you in this forum. So much passion in the discussion. I will talk about something close to my heart.

    I grew up in various parts of India. I was born a Sikh (which means I wore a turban). In 1984, Indira Gandhi our Prime Minister of the time sent in army to Golden Temple as a separatist leader was occupying the holiest shrine for sikhs and there were intelligence reports that he will declare the region of Punjab as independent country called Khalistan. Canadians will remember about this as Sikh terrorists blew up an Air India plane which was travelling from Canada to India. Anyway, Jarnail Singh the separatist was killed and rumours flew that Hindus in Amritsar danced and distributed sweets when the news came out. Hindus were one of the targets of Jarnail’s gang.

    Few months later Indira Gandhi was killed by her 2 Sikh bodyguards. I still distinctly remember rushing back home from school as our Teachers hurriedly packed us off. Good thing too because by evening Sikhs were being hunted and killed (lots of them had kerosene poured on them and were burnt alive). We were lucky. Our family was kept hidden for 10 days by our Hindu neighbours while marauding gangs of Hindus looked to find more Sikhs to kill. Mind you, we sikhs were not any whiter than white. All those years when Hindus were being pulled out of buses by Sikh terrorists and being shot dead for being Hindus, us sikhs were not getting outraged. We were justifying these horrible crimes in our minds as revenge for all the perceived injustices from the past decades.

    Years later I was studying in Bombay when gangsters based in Dubai setoff bombs in the city as revenge for rioting against Muslims in the city. Again we were in lockdown and seeing people kill each other. No race or nation has rights over “racism”. This western rose-tinted idea that we Asians are not racist is not true. We Indians are one of the most racist societies. We have tons of prejudices towards people of other religions, colour, race. I remember we making so many racist jokes about small Chinese eyes or flat chested Chinese girls. Basically, when you are a majority you just grow up thinking of other minorties as in some way less that you.

    I have been living out of India now for 25 years. Trust me, Brown skin is never a Previledge. In Asia, we have been independent for more than 50 years but our minds are still colonized by the white man’s superiority. I thought with education our minds will open up to more liberal and tolerant concepts. But I still see muslims being demonised in Europe and USA, brutally killed in countries like Myanmar and Sri Lanka (interestingly, Buddhist majority societies where their right wing Buddhist religious leaders don’t even have any pretence about racial equality. Imagine if such genocide was being carried out in Malaysia which is a Muslim majority country. Imagine the uproar and generalisations of all muslims being supporters of violence). I still see people in India being killed on suspicion of eating or carrying beef. I meet so many Indians who have lived out of India for years but their minds are still full of the same prejudices they were brought up with. And these are very bright, intelligent people who meet and interact with all kinds of races in their workplace daily.

    But, to Dr. I will say just one thing. You are not a racist, just because you are white. But being born white is being in a position of previledge. No, you don’t have live with any guilt. But recognise that this skin of yours gives you an advantage (even in Asia where a white man will be fawned over while an African will most likely be snubbed or treated with indifference). Nobody expects you to go out of the way to give up on your previledge, just don’t use stats from some podcast to form opinions of people and societies of which you have no first hand experience.

    1. SG, thank you for sharing your story. I do not mean to presume knowledge I don’t have of other cultures, but I can only learn indirectly. I would not contradict the opinions of those better placed to have them, such as yourself. I do still reserve the right to an opinion on issues that I have no firsthand knowledge of, otherwise most of the world would be off limits. The issue of survey validity, bias, and interpretation (if that’s the part of my comments that you reference) is separate in my mind and has little to do with race except when those methods intersect with racially charged issues. In those situations, even very reliable methods may be heatedly debated simply because their outcome seems at odds with our perception of how groups of people should be viewed, which is that we are all inherently good and equal. Of course it feels different when you feel like you’re the part of a demographic associated with unflattering (to say the least) numbers or if you have personally been the victim of horrible persecution. Nobody can be truly dispassionate in the face of that, nor should they be.

       I do believe all humans strive to do good in their own environment, in our own way, but in this rapidly globalizing state we are in, ideas from all over are colliding and occasionally igniting problems. Because of the way our minds work, we are fear driven, and we latch on to those negative aspects that we hear about, no less because news seldom fails to report shocking or bad images and stories. So in my opinion, the overwhelmingly bulk of human behavior that is positive is cast aside and ignored except in extreme circumstances or among the already very well publicized. Why? Because every day acts of generosity and kindness aren’t newsworthy. That in and of itself tells the story. We really are, for the most part, good to each other. But we are fascinated by perversions, we are driven to extremes by fear, and we look out for our own first and foremost.

    2. Some really great comments on here, and this is among them. Thank you for this. I think it might be the most honest and fair opinion I’ve read on the 84 riots, and I sincerely mean that.

19. I ended up watching most of the Sam Harris video again. I hope someone who listens to his podcasts and ‘generally’ likes him decides to watch it and can tell me if he’s always like this or not.

    Because honestly, he is full of sh*t here. I had vaguely heard of him before and after watching this had dismissed him, but I’ve seen his name a lot recently, as an intellectual. Based on just this debate, he is infuriating. Dodges all challenges to his arguments going off on random, long drawn out tangents as if he’s speaking some amazing wisdom, and pretends he’s got all the facts because… ‘stats’?.. When actually he seems to have very little knowledge of the subject of religion as it is practiced, and his arguments are terrible, both logically and morally. Tends to go for some easy laughs though by drawing weird parallels.

    If he’s an intellectual, I despair.

    Maybe this isn’t his usual subject?

    1. Shard, to be honest, I don’t have the energy to continue this debate. Maybe another time we can unpack more of this. Right now, I’m packing it in! Cheers and thanks for your valuable comments on the topic.

Comments are closed.