Just to clarify. Is the racism issue from last night covering all the various

[JJSB]

acts against the English race (black and white) or primarily focusing on the treatment of the black players, which is usually what is implied by racism?

Because the race agenda has again superceded all else it seems, with so many black players being quoted in the press today as saying kick Serbia out of competitve football etc, and now David Cameron weighing in saying sanctions must be taken for the racism (though again, this is not clear if it was against the English race overall, or specifically the black players)

To repeat a point I made earlier, how about all the violent acts? Missiles pelted at black and white England players. And two of the white English coaches punched, kicked and headbutted.
But the whole issue in the press again focuses solely on the abuse of the black players.

Just seemed to me like a cauldron of hate where anything went last night.

[Luis Anaconda]

[Billy Goat Sverige]

And the black ones. Kill two birds with one stone etc....

[Classic Jorge]

I'd say that, racially/ethnically at least, that our black players are afro-caribean or mixed race (or mulatto and/or half caste, depending on which century you draw your sensibilities from - I'm looking at you John Terry)

[Maz]

[Classic Jorge]

[Free SL]

you do know that don't you?

[JJSB]

a race of people.

[Free SL]

I don't care how "blurred" the lines are, English is not, and never will be, a race.

[Classic Jorge]

That's what makes the BNP schpiel so ridicules, we're about as mongrelish an island race as you can get

[Billy Goat Sverige]

[JJSB]

to be racist against the natives of a country like America then?

[Luis Anaconda]

wrong. That people do so is with these and other undeniable, it doesn't make it a matter for debate. These people are just wrong. It's a simple thing really. It is like saying would of instead of would have. That's the thing about words they generally have specific meanings

[JJSB]

1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.

1 and 3 could be altering significantly going forward (though obviously not historically) and who's to say for example in point 2 where the starting point is for common history? Eight generations back, or a second or third generation West Indian migrant.

And as for genetics, it's been shown that there are similarities in genetics between some white Europeans, and Africans, who are totally unrelated.

So as I said, it's all blurry. People tend to classify it by ethnicity or colour, but go through most people's family tree and you won't find "pure" bloodlines amyway.

[Luis Anaconda]

[JJSB]