Jump to content

Shitsburgh fan sends racist message to Vontaze


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, saphead said:

Not shocking at all but here you go. What a low life vile piece of shit fan base. 

 

http://fanbuzz.com/nfl/vontaze-burfict-noose-bengals-Stealers/

 

DR7XIBZVoAAzYQX.jpg:large

 

 

 

I'm sure he'll be "hanging" this picture in his locker for the 2018 season.  He should pay the fine for whomever knocks out Juju or anyone else wearing the yellow and black...   (this year or next).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Jason said:

Classless?  Yes.  

 

Racist????

Racist ?  Yes.  I've seen "cases" processed based upon a rope noose.  Placing a black man inside the noose would certainly qualify for racist IMHO.  However, we are talking about Pissburgh and it will be treated as a non-issue with law enforcement and league officials... 1/2 :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Numbers said:

Racist ?  Yes.  I've seen "cases" processed based upon a rope noose.  Placing a black man inside the noose would certainly qualify for racist IMHO.  However, we are talking about Pissburgh and it will be treated as a non-issue with law enforcement and league officials... 1/2 :ninja:

 

I mean, actual members of the team have issued death threats against him & of course there was Joey Porter & crew mugging Levi Jones during an offseason & nothing came of that..  So yeah, I wouldn't expect much action here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Numbers said:

Racist ?  Yes.  I've seen "cases" processed based upon a rope noose.  Placing a black man inside the noose would certainly qualify for racist IMHO.  However, we are talking about Pissburgh and it will be treated as a non-issue with law enforcement and league officials... 1/2 :ninja:

What if the person who did it was black?  What if the person who did it had no racial motivation at all, just hanging a player they hate in effigy? I think “racist” is an assumption there isn’t enough evidence to make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CincyInDC said:

If a person is too unobservant to realize his or her actions are racist, are those actions still racist? I'd say yes. 

 

Relocating to J&D in 3...2...1...

 

 

Agreed.  A Jewish dude spray painting a swastika doesn't change its inherent meaning.   It's like the Confederate flag and many other things; there is a shared social context that can't be reasoned away with "what-if's".  I can claim the burning cross on my lawn actually means I like chocolate cake but I would be foolish to expect anyone else to accept that.  

 

Likewise the image of a lynched black man carries a historic message well beyond "I Don't Like Vontaze Burfict".  Claiming personal ignorance of that message is no excuse for perpetuating it, and probably bullshit anyway.  They knew what they were doing.  Further, to try and deny that history because "MEEEEEE!" is trollish dickweed behavior.   Nobody GAF if you like chocolate cake or your great-great-granpappy served under Jeb Stuart.  "well to MEEE it means _____"  Sorry, no. Quit being an asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CincyInDC said:

If a person is too unobservant to realize his or her actions are racist, are those actions still racist? I'd say yes. 

 

Relocating to J&D in 3...2...1...

No, I think it needs to be a racially motivated act to be racist. stealers fans hate Burfict.  Is it possible that the event was racially motivated?  Yes.  But I still say there isn't enough evidence to make that claim.  Hanging someone you hate in effigy can be done with no racist intent at all. It started in the 1700s in the US and was usually done in protest for political reasons.  Washington and Jefferson were both hanged in effigy.  That was not racist, so the act itself is not inherently racist.  Because there were lynch mobs that hanged black Americans in the past, which absolutely was racist, does not make all subsequent hangings racist.

 

And those are my last words on this topic. :smile: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, no gray area for racism in my book. Intellectually, I understand the argument that the perpetrator's motives are technically unknown, i.e., they just hate the football player, but c'mon.  Many people, of many races, may have been hung in effigy because they were hated for many things, but black Americans were hung FOR REAL not terribly long ago. Anyone who hangs a black person in effigy is automatically given racist status and rightfully so. Ignorance is no excuse. 

 

As for the football element, didn't all of this start when Bell was injured playing the Bengals? Vontaze made a football tackle then instantly ran back towards his sideline in excitement. I don't think he had time to know if LeVeon was hurt, but the Stealers took it as an intentional act, followed by a celebration. Stealers players issued threats of intentionally injuring Bengal players before their next matchup, and Mike Mitchell made good by spearing Tyler Eifert in the head. That hit was so blatantly for the purpose of injury, but as far as what it actually cost Pittsburgh on the field, fifteen yards. Mitchell then said to A.J. Green, "you're next." The wild card game was their third meeting that year, and I won't even get into all of that. I've honestly been a "blame Marvin" guy since the San Diego wildcard loss, but SOMEBODY in the Bengal hierarchy should have addressed this crap the second Mitchell hit Eifert. Besides the obvious need to physically protect the players, we always got the shaft from the purely football side as well. Who gives a shit if Mitchell had to dig change out of his couch to pay a fine off the field, when he was allowed to intentionally sideline our star tight end and the price was only fifteen yards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jason said:

No, I think it needs to be a racially motivated act to be racist. stealers fans hate Burfict.  Is it possible that the event was racially motivated?  Yes.  But I still say there isn't enough evidence to make that claim.  Hanging someone you hate in effigy can be done with no racist intent at all. It started in the 1700s in the US and was usually done in protest for political reasons.  Washington and Jefferson were both hanged in effigy.  That was not racist, so the act itself is not inherently racist.  Because there were lynch mobs that hanged black Americans in the past, which absolutely was racist, does not make all subsequent hangings racist.

 

And those are my last words on this topic. :smile: 

So this Stealer fan was erudite enough to know about the tradition of hanging someone in effigy but somehow completely ignorant of the significance of the noose symbolism in African American culture?

 

Not buying it.  Just a noose alone with a sign saying "for 55" would be considered racist by EVERYONE.  No way the person doing this was not aware of the statement he was making.

 

"So, yeah, I am just like carrying on the 18th century American tradition of voicing my displeasure with my opponent by hanging an effigy of him.  .  .  .  .  What's that?  Hanging was the preferred mode of murder practiced by the Klan on African Americans and was so popular in the early 1900's that a noose was as powerful a symbol of terror as a burning cross?  Gee, I never heard anything about that."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, schotzee said:

I'm with Jason that it's not racist. I just think it's just the common way of saying someone needs to die without saying the words. Hell they hung Saddam Hussein . Putting someone in an "electric chair" or "head in a guillotine"  just doesn't get the point across.

Seriously?

 

You don't think just a noose and a sign saying "for #55" would have been racist?  The Klan made sure that the noose became a powerful symbol of racial hatred.  Hanging was not the easiest way to kill a black man, but they used it whenever possible in order to send a message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, fredtoast said:

Seriously?

 

You don't think just a noose and a sign saying "for #55" would have been racist?  The Klan made sure that the noose became a powerful symbol of racial hatred.  Hanging was not the easiest way to kill a black man, but they used it whenever possible in order to send a message.

Absolutely not. I think people way over think certain things way too much. Perhaps this is why the term racist falls under more than just a single definition anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, schotzee said:

Absolutely not. I think people way over think certain things way too much. Perhaps this is why the term racist falls under more than just a single definition anymore. 

 

I think people try to under think things a lot, especially when it comes to symbols of hatred.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, A Rock said:

First off, no gray area for racism in my book. Intellectually, I understand the argument that the perpetrator's motives are technically unknown, i.e., they just hate the football player, but c'mon.  Many people, of many races, may have been hung in effigy because they were hated for many things, but black Americans were hung FOR REAL not terribly long ago. Anyone who hangs a black person in effigy is automatically given racist status and rightfully so. Ignorance is no excuse. 

 

As for the football element, didn't all of this start when Bell was injured playing the Bengals? Vontaze made a football tackle then instantly ran back towards his sideline in excitement. I don't think he had time to know if LeVeon was hurt, but the Stealers took it as an intentional act, followed by a celebration. Stealers players issued threats of intentionally injuring Bengal players before their next matchup, and Mike Mitchell made good by spearing Tyler Eifert in the head. That hit was so blatantly for the purpose of injury, but as far as what it actually cost Pittsburgh on the field, fifteen yards. Mitchell then said to A.J. Green, "you're next." The wild card game was their third meeting that year, and I won't even get into all of that. I've honestly been a "blame Marvin" guy since the San Diego wildcard loss, but SOMEBODY in the Bengal hierarchy should have addressed this crap the second Mitchell hit Eifert. Besides the obvious need to physically protect the players, we always got the shaft from the purely football side as well. Who gives a shit if Mitchell had to dig change out of his couch to pay a fine off the field, when he was allowed to intentionally sideline our star tight end and the price was only fifteen yards?

Great post, but to be fair to Mitchell (did I just type that?), he was just doing Eifert a favor and getting him on the IR sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...