Are the people who claim Hopkins made racist comments actually racist themselves?

I gave you a detailed explanation, and this is what you come back with. Let's hear from B-Hop.

The sad thing is, most rational people would not label Hopkins as a racist. However, I think many white people feel that they are the only ones who hold the burden of being politically correct. They get so tired of walking on eggshells that they pounce on the opportunity to label someone else as a racist. The fact of the matter is, the term racism is thrown around way too much in this world. Hopkins' comments were ill advised and prejudice. However, they were not racist and he is not a racist.

There are differences between different races and people notice these differences. White people are generally better swimmers than black people. Does this mean whites are superior to blacks or that blacks don't have the ability to swim? The answer is no. However, it is plain as day that they take more of an interest in swimming than blacks, and therefore are better at it, in general, than blacks.

 

This is all a bunch of bull****. The comment wasn't remotely racist. Why would he wanna lose to a White boy? That's not what champions do. Champions win. And he ain't fixin' to get his ass kicked by nobody.

 

If joe says this then the **** hits the fan big time and everybody is crying their eyes out at the racist calzaghe, if he meant it or not this comment would get joe in serious trouble. Double standards.

 

The Oxford English dictionary describes racism as:

"Discrimination against or antagonism towards other races"

Pretty much what he said.

 

Ok , let me run through that once more...

Bernard says .. He will never lose to a white boy....

And everyone who heard it is racist..

What a ****in arsehole..

 

That's another stupid definition. Furthermore, when the hell did he discriminate against anyone?

 

Picture this...
Joseph Calzaghe states at the final presser quote..

" I would never be seen to lose to a Black man... "

The ****in boot would change and all **** hits the fan..

You can't have one rule for one and one for another..

I hate these kinds of issues and it shows class when Joe doesn't dig down deep and low enough to make such a rough edged comment and neither would I.. But if he did .. I am sure it would not be brushed over so quickly by all concerned..

If you do .. you are completely delluded......

 

I keep it short, because you keep on repeating yourself, trying to justify Bernard's xenophobic rant. Finally you admit that his comment was racist. I never argued that Hopkins is racist. I don't know him, I could only judge his comments. This particular one is racist. Your opinion about black vs white swimmers is acknowledged. I agree that there are (probably) more white swimmers and therefore they dominate. These are statistics, neutral facts. However if a white person would go on a record saying that he'll never lose to a black boy there would be hell to pay. And rightfully so. I though, I already supplied the link to the white politician claiming that blacks are on average worse swimmers in his experience and it cost him election, and he had to apologize. Here you go again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramm_Hudson

 

Hopinks' comments were definately not xenophic. To call it a xenophobic rant is silly. Also, I did not admit that the comments were racist, that was a typo. Once again, your politician example is stupid. It's called political correctness for a reason. ****ing politicians will say whatever they have to in order to get elected. If Hopkins was running for office, he would apologize as well. Furthermore, you have no idea if that comment is why he lost the election. All you know is that he made these comments and lost. Just because event B followed event A, doesn't event B was caused by event A. Read this article about Schwarzenegger, and keep in mind this mother ****er was still elected governor without having any political experience.

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/15/second_black_bodybuilder_claims_schwarzenegger_repeatedly

 

I think you missed that 'or' in the definition. "Discrimination against OR antagonism towards." Not AND. Only one condition needs to be satisfied for the statement to be true. 'Antagonism towards' fits the bill qute nicely here. Also what is your definition and where does it come from? You are sure quick to dismiss sources like Oxford dictionary as bull****. Put up or shut up.

 

Thankyou , someone knows what i am talkin about .. Bernard may not be a racist and actually having takin a lift in his car a few years ago i find him so unracist its untrue.. But in fact.. The comment in question would and is by many deemed a racist comment....

Black guy states that he is gonna dominate over a white guy...

White Guy states that he is gonns be dominant over a black guy..

Both statements in todays touchy planet pass as racist.. Its the way the world has turned .. and it is a shame..


I think its best left alone.. God bless fellers...

 

Means **** really,good angle to build he fight,but can you imagine the shitstorm there would have been here if joeC had said "no way i lose to a black BOY",and you all know thats true

 

The or antagonism towards is what makes it a stupid definition. It's too vague. If a black guy calls a white guy a *****, he's certainly showing antagonism towards another race but he sure as hell isn't being racist. The point is, many things can be considered antagonistic without being racist, which is why that part of the definition is stupid.

 

In fairness you can see the limited response the hopkins comment has got in the main stream press. We on a boxing forum are discussing it because a boxer has made the statement.

If Joe made the comment it would be international news and everybody would be talking about racist calzaghe. Whether or not calzaghe used it to sell the fight, he would still get very bad press etc. Not happening to Hopkins at the moment, why?

 

Nicely put. God bless, yourself!:good