en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/758544 Comments by crudolph730 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55574582 Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures. So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status. Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:30:25 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55574582 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55574413 Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures. So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status. Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:18:02 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55574413 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55572977 Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures. So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status. Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:15:23 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55572977 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573159 Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:06:55 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573159 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573141 So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:06:46 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573141 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573124 Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:06:36 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573124 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55575249 Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures. So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status. Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 05:30:25 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55575249 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55574493 Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures. So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status. Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 05:18:02 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55574493 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55574242 Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures. So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status. Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 05:15:23 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55574242 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573276 Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 05:06:55 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573276 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573264 So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 05:06:46 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573264 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573248 Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 05:06:36 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55573248 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55572753 Alright, so I was one of the many to venture out and see Avatar, but I was not ignorant of the issues Brooks raises. It was kind of obvious, to me at least, that we were supposed to see the 'US Army' as the bad guys and the 'natives' as inherently good and worthwhile. To me, it seemed much more of a political movie than anything else. Who else besides big government and the US military would bomb a huge tree in a magical forest? But this movie is more important than just for its special effects. It displays quite blatantly and dramatically racial disputes between two completely opposing cultures. So frequently in cinema and in the media, white people are portrayed as the 'saviors' to a group that is most typically composed of minorities. This is not a new trend, as Brooks described, nor is it likely to be altered anytime soon. But I think that Brooks reads a little too much into it. I understand that he is trying to make a point about generalizations and stereotypes but he doesn't take into account that in Hollywood and especially in blockbusters like Avatar, directors and producers are trying to create something that people can relate to; something that is familiar to them, whether it's stereotypes about a 'white Messiah' or a hippie's anti-governmental portrayal of natural awareness and environmental importance. Avatar is, first and foremost, a product that someone is trying to sell. But what I have a problem with, and maybe what Brooks is getting at, is the over generalizations and portrayals of specific 'races' or cultures. According to Brooks, Avatar portrays white people as "rationalist and technocratic" and the natives as "spiritual and athletic". But so many people, and mainstream media, so often don't take into account that people are not defined by their skin color or social status. Personally, I believe that people are what they make of themselves. So, if you want to be lazy, or an athlete, or a surgeon or priest that's individual choice! It doesn't matter where you come from. But that is just my personal belief, and that is not necessarily what sells. I think that Avatar was such a success because it played into stereotypes that people are already familiar with, and not only the 'white Messiah' thing. People weren't phased by seeing a governmental role as 'the bad guy' because people have been attacking the US government for their environmental policies for years. Anyone who has ever heard of Michael Moore or any of his documentaries should not be shocked to see the government as bad, even if they don't agree with it. I think that in the end, people will make of the film what they will. Sure, it raises issues about culture and stereotype, but so many films do. And while I completely agree with Brooks in that Avatar does play into the white Messiah theme, I don't think that takes anything away from the film and I don't necessarily think that it is condescending or hurtful to any particular social or cultural group. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 04:59:40 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55572753 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/racism-looks-pretty-good-on-this-side-of-the-atlantic__trashed/#IDComment54452620 When I studied abroad in France last year, I went to a soccer game and I couldn't believe what I saw there, and it was exactly what was highlighted in this video. Even Penn State fans have nothing on European fans. The level of intensity they have is nothing short of amazing, but they way they choose to use that intense love and pride of their team is nothing short of terrible. As recently as last year, I have seen so much animosity towards players of different regions, skin colors, and backgrounds. I think that it's really interesting that in Europe, racism isn't really something that's a big deal, or something that many people view as a problem. That's not saying that every European is racist or even that they condone the things fans in the crowds are doing, but people have such a different mindset over there. I guess in a way, racism might not be as big of an issue as it is in the US because they didn't really go through the Civil Rights Movement. People, and the aristocrats, just kind of grew out of slavery and colonialism, and they never addressed the huge problems that go along with those political actions. People in the United States are hyper sensitive about racism, and I think that's why, to a large degree, we tend to be "politically correct" and skirt around the issue. Even though people here still understand racism is an issue, it's not on the front burner anymore. I don't think that people living in Europe and coming from European backgrounds have had that cultural sensitivity, and that's why those images and actions are so shocking to us, as Americans. But anyways, I digress. The main issue here, in my opinion, is the insensitivity and violence in the crowds that affects individuals in an international sport. In the international community, we're all supposed to put aside our differences, forget who fought against who in what world war, and just play against each other as competitive humans. But it's impossible to be unbiased, and I think that bias is portrayed in the crowds. Like I said before, it's outrageous to us as Americans that that kind of racism exists today. Because let's face it, even here we have those ridiculous, rowdy fans (ahem maybe some Red Sox/Yankees fans?) who can be cruel and violent towards members of their 'rival' teams and even their fans. But to so brutally call one person out just because of the color of their skin? And its not just one person who makes these remarks, it can be an entire stadium. Sports are supposed to bring people of different backgrounds together as a way to enjoy and share something in common. But a big part of that is respect. And European fans portrayed in that video have a shocking lack of respect for other people and players. The video is shocking, yes. There is an extreme level of hatred portrayed, and I completely agree with other comments in commending the players who have stood up, stopped the game, or simply said "this has to change". Because I agree, this has to change. I support whole heartedly the FIFA president's threat to essentially shut down the game of soccer until the situation gets better. But it's going to take a lot more than a threat like that to actually change people's mindsets and actions. Violence, whether physical or verbal, should simply not be tolerated. In my opinion, FIFA needs to do more than threaten their fans, they need to educate them. In this year, this decade, in our global society, there just is no place for racism and ignorance. I think this is a problem that probably needs to be solved, but in all likelihood, fans will keep shouting disrespectful and hurtful remarks. I can only hope that as individuals, they someday understand the pain and hurt they have caused others, and they are inspired to alter their behavior. Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:18:14 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/racism-looks-pretty-good-on-this-side-of-the-atlantic__trashed/#IDComment54452620 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-r__trashed/#IDComment54036853 Hello! Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:58:49 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-r__trashed/#IDComment54036853