Player Watch Player Watch: Destiny Udogie

[fishhhandaricecake]

Wise up, I’ve seen players like VDV described as a beast today. Biggest load of bolox . I describe people of all races as beasts that are at the top of their sports . If people are insistent on looking at everything through a filter of looking for offence then go ahead , but don’t expect everyone else to comply . And it’s also all too easy to accuse people of racism when they clearly aren’t . I’m sick of it .

Yep it’s absolutely overanalysis that modern society loves today.

Any racist words or words with those connotations are absolutely not on EVER.

However to call Udogie a beast of a player is not racist at all. It’s a compliment to say that he’s one heck of a player, a beast, a warrior, a gladiator which is the type of player he is, he’s all action, he’s physical, he’s very strong for someone of his age, he’s explosively fast and he’s a fantastic player, that is what people mean by a ‘beast’ of a player.

No-one is NOT acknowledging his technical skills if anything saying a player is a beast kind of denotes that they’re a very good all-round player.

Diego Costa was a beast of a forward in his prime, John Terry was a beast of a defender, Dembele & Wanyama were beasts of midfielders for us as they dominated the game, Nadal is a ‘beast’ of a tennis player, Bryson Dechambeau is a beast of a Golfer.

Take our other full-back Porro you’d not call him a ‘beast’ and nothing to do with race, he simply isn’t a ‘beast’ type of a player, he’s much smaller and slighter and so if you want to compliment him we can compliment his passing and say he is a ‘baller’ but Udogie is both a baller and a beast. I’d also not call Emerson a ‘beast’ of a player as he’s not as explosive and powerful and quick and strong as Destiny is. It’s just a way to describe a certain style of player that’s it, end of.

I completely get we have to be very careful and sensitive with wording but at the same time let’s not make something into a big deal when it isn’t needed, that is the issue that people have.

Love Destiny, fully COYS

 

[VoteMe4Prez]

I doubt he will start tomorrow. Probably will come on 2nd half I'd imagine

 

[punkisback]

I couldn't agree more with you. The tone in this thread has become incredibly disingenuous, and I think a lot of people posting in here should approach topics like this with a lot less arrogance.

When people get called out on using coded language, a lot of times their first response is to plead ignorance. And to a certain extent, I think it's fair to cut people some slack if that's their defense- language is constantly shifting, and different words mean different things to different people with different experiences. It's the human condition that we all can't 100% relate to everyone else's experience with life, and if we're going to connect with one another in any sort of constructive way, we need to understand that not everyone is going to understand things like coded language in the same way.

But razor1981 made an excellent post where he explained the exact nature of why people object to this kind of language, and actually referenced professionally conducted studies to back his point up. And the response by and large by posters in this thread is to completely ignore it, and to pretend like this is still a great big mystery to them. Ignorance is not a defense you can use twice- once it's explained to you, you're not unclear on anything, you're just actively refusing to engage in examining your language. A generous reading of this situation is to call that kind of thinking dishonest and lazy; I'm not feeling very generous today, though, so I'm just going to assume that the folks doubling down on this right now are simply bigots, and I'll read all of their subsequent posts on any topic through that lens.

Completely agree on this. Have brought this up before and also on the treatment that Rudiger got when he accused us of racism. Also ties into the “we sing what we want” chants from a few years ago. It’s fine to not be aware of it but it’s worse when people double down on it. As a person of colour I have talked about what racist things I’ve heard at spurs in the past and been shot down for it.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

However to call Udogie a beast of a player is not racist at all.

Yes and no.

I think when most people use the term - it is intended as a compliment. “An unstoppable player!”

But, the reality is - it does perpetuate a negative stereotype of black athletes - even if it’s an unintended consequence.

Sometimes we can say things without appreciating the impact to others.

 

[Wick3d]

 

[EighteenEightyTwo]

Take our other full-back Porro you’d not call him a ‘beast’ and nothing to do with race, he simply isn’t a ‘beast’ type of a player, he’s much smaller and slighter

Pedro weighs more than Destiny though so I don’t think that argument helps you.

 

[Trix]

Beast means Elite? Which means The Goat? Or something like that.

Spoke to my 17yo and his mate about this as they used it to describe a white player they played against on the weekend. Fact is they couldn't understand the issue at all and had no connection to the word in a racist way. Like many words, the usage and perceived meaning/intention has changed over the generations and his understanding as a teenager of how it's being used is basically this.

From the urban dictionary......

Beast is a slang term that can be used as a compliment or an insult. As a compliment, it is used to describe a remarkable person with enviable confidence, an imposing appearance, a set of impressive abilities, or a list of achievements1. As an insult, it is used to describe a rude person or someone behaving in a crude, savage, or horrible way2. In some regions, it is used to mean "great", "excellent", or "powerful"34.

 

[Tucker]

Diego Costa was a beast of a forward in his prime, John Terry was a beast of a defender, Dembele & Wanyama were beasts of midfielders for us as they dominated the game, Nadal is a ‘beast’ of a tennis player, Bryson Dechambeau is a beast of a Golfer.

The problem is with these examples is they only ever really get used when this debate comes up. I’ve honestly never heard anyone describe Terry, Nadal, or Dechambeau as “beasts” before. I very rarely, if ever hear about white athletes being described as beasts. And no, a WWE wrestler acting out the role of a beast doesn’t count.

The study that’s been mentioned (and ignored by people in here) shows that black sports people are overwhelmingly labelled using descriptors which highlight their physicality, whereas in white athletes, it’s intelligence and skill that are more likely to be highlighted.

I find beast in particular to be pretty dehumanising, you’re boiling a person down to animalistic terms and only focusing on their brute force. When it’s been pointed out by several black posters, using calm language and showing genuine research that’s been done into it, I find it more than a little disconcerting the way people hand waive and bury their heads in the sand over this.

 

[soflapaul]

Yes and no.

I think when most people use the term - it is intended as a compliment. “An unstoppable player!”

But, the reality is - it does perpetuate a negative stereotype of black athletes - even if it’s an unintended consequence.

Sometimes we can say things without appreciating the impact to others.

It would be interesting to see why someone disagrees with this. Seems pretty straightforward reasoning.

 

[Trix]

It would be interesting to see why someone disagrees with this. Seems pretty straightforward reasoning.

I'd question how old they were mate, like I said most younger people don't see it as anything but a compliment be it towards black, white, or anything in between.

Words are ever evolving over time, and with every generation. It's nothing new and has been going on for centuries. An awful lot of words don't remotely mean what they did centuries ago.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

Pedro weighs more than Destiny though so I don’t think that argument helps you.

Destiny is about 5 inches taller so he is bigger so shush lol.

 

[fishhhandaricecake]

The problem is with these examples is they only ever really get used when this debate comes up. I’ve honestly never heard anyone describe Terry, Nadal, or Dechambeau as “beasts” before. I very rarely, if ever hear about white athletes being described as beasts. And no, a WWE wrestler acting out the role of a beast doesn’t count.

The study that’s been mentioned (and ignored by people in here) shows that black sports people are overwhelmingly labelled using descriptors which highlight their physicality, whereas in white athletes, it’s intelligence and skill that are more likely to be highlighted.

I find beast in particular to be pretty dehumanising, you’re boiling a person down to animalistic terms and only focusing on their brute force. When it’s been pointed out by several black posters, using calm language and showing genuine research that’s been done into it, I find it more than a little disconcerting the way people hand waive and bury their heads in the sand over this.

I don't think anyone is burying their heads in the sand and I've heard Nadal called a beast of a tennis player plenty of times.

Personally I explained my points well in a balanced way in my previous post and am going to leave it there now.

Back to discussing Destiny as the fantastic footballer and young person that he seems to be and that we are lucky to have.

 

[soflapaul]

I'd question how old they were mate, like I said most younger people don't see it as anything but a compliment be it towards black, white, or anything in between.

Words are ever evolving over time, and with every generation. It's nothing new and has been going on for centuries. An awful lot of words don't remotely mean what they did centuries ago.

that's an interesting observation. i'm in my 60s and it was always a compliment especially in American football and race didn't come intot it back then. Defensive players who could light up someone on a tackle (Ray Lewis, Butkus, Bergey) or offensive players who couldn't be stopped (Earl Campbell, Csonka, Bettis) were all commonly referred to as beasts.

 

[MichaelPawson]

It kind of feels like there are two different discussions happening here. Those who are defending the use of terms like "beast" are focused on the intent of the person using the term, almost as if it's a referendum on whether or not that person is racist. Because intent is personal, they can't really rely on anything other than anecdotal evidence- you can't do a wide-ranging study of a large group of people's true thoughts and feelings, for very obvious reasons.

Those of us who are uncomfortable with the term, though, are focused mainly on the impact of words like "beast". There is a recognition that not all insensitive acts will have some sort of intent behind them, and for the most part (and there may be some exceptions in this thread), people have explained their objections in a reasonable and conciliatory way, rather than an accusatory one. And because of the nature of this issue and because of the academic studies conducted on the subject, they don't necessarily have to rely on anecdotal evidence to support their point.

The problem I have with the discussion in this thread is that intent is irrelevant if you are indifferent to the impact of your words or actions. If I hit someone with my car but I didn't mean to, I'm not all of a sudden out of trouble. And if I'm told time and time again that driving dangerously can harm others and I do it anyway, then I wouldn't expect any sympathy from a judge if I told them "I didn't mean to do bad but I didn't care enough to avoid it, either."

I think that's what people are objecting to here- anyone can say something that's coded in a way they may not realize at first, and that doesn’t make them a bad person. But insisting upon it as if only the perspective and intent of the speaker matters shows a level of indifference to the wider subject that I think is wildly misguided. And the more you insist on it, the more of a conscious choice it becomes, which kind of demolishes the whole “intent” argument.

 

[McFlash]

So, is Eddie Hall a racist now?

 

[philll]

Starting against England.

 

[Woodyy]

Honestly I started writing my opinion on this “beast” thing and quickly realised it would be fucking pointless and boring.

 

[BorjeSpurs]

That is so cool!

Now we know the real reason Saka pulled out….

 

[smallsnc]

Udogie, back on topic, is the best 20-year old left back I think I have seen. His potential long term looks really impressive based on both his physical and what looks like a really knowledgeable approach, regardless what labels we put on him.

Regarding the "Beast" discussion. I get that some would hear the term and feel it is derogatory, but being a 5'4" white, 60+ year old male, I chuckle when the younger generation (including a African-American 6'3" former American football player) call me a beast because of the way I shoot billiards. Lots of labels can be derogatory used in the wrong way. I didn't necessarily like being called Smalls when I was playing football (soccer), but as you can see from my name on this site, I chose to embrace it instead of letting it get to me. My suggestion is to always take the label in the more positive way until someone shows by other actions that they meant in negatively. At least then, they can't fall back on the "you took it the wrong way" argument.

 

[Woodyy]

Up against Rashford then, that’ll be more interesting than seeing him against Saka again.