German football coach condemns 'racist' TV survey that asked participants if they wanted to see more white players on the national football team
German football coach condemns 'racist' TV survey that asked participants if they wanted to see more white players on the national football team
Julian Nagelsmann condemned the poll, which asked if people wanted more white players on the German team.
The poll by the ARD public broadcaster said 21% of respondents agreed with the proposition.
"It is racist. I feel we need to wake up. Many people in Europe had to flee.. searching for a safe country," Nagelsmann said on Sunday.
The 36-year-old said he agreed with Germany midfielder Joshua Kimmich, who described the questionnaire as "racist" a day earlier.
“Josh [Kimmich] responded really well, with a very clear and thought-out statement,” Nagelsmann said at a briefing at his team's training base.
“I see this in exactly the same way. This question is insane.”
“There are people in Europe who’ve had to flee because of war, economic factors, environmental disasters, people who simply want to be taken in," he went on.
"We have to ask what are we doing at the moment? We in Germany are doing very, very well, and when we say something like that, I think it’s crazy how we turn a blind eye and simply block out such things."
ARD - the German public broadcaster - said it had commissioned the survey to have measurable data, after a reporter working on a documentary on football and diversity was repeatedly asked about the make-up of the national team.
The poll was conducted among 1,304 randomly selected respondents.
Karl Valks, sports director with the ARD station who commissioned the poll, said the company was "dismayed that the results are what they are, but they are also an expression of the social situation in Germany today".
"Sport plays an important role in our society, the national team is a strong example of integration," German media cited him as saying.
The current national squad has a number of players with mixed heritage, including captain Ilkay Gündogan and winger Leroy Sané.
Germany is hosting the Euro 2024 tournament later this month, and Nagelsmann said his team would be playing "for everyone in the country". They will kick-off the competition with a clash against Scotland at Munich's Allianz Arena on 14 June.
The controversy comes just weeks after the team's kit manufacturer, Adidas, was forced to ban fans from buying German football kits customised with the number 44, after media raised their resemblance to the symbol used by World War Two-era Nazi SS units.
The SS was responsible for many of the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis. Members of the SS ranged from Gestapo agents to concentration camp guards. SS duties included administering death camps where millions of Jews and others were put to death.
You're viewing a single thread.
Not a football fan, but good answer to a stupid racist question. Journalism needs to reflect on how their reporting is enabling the far right and legitimising racist talking points in society. At least here in Germany the media plays a substantial role in the rise of the AFD and normalising right wing policies.
The main point is that the starting question is so stupid that it is an offence to the stupid questions.
In a national football team you should get the best of the best, whatever color the skin is. You want to win, not to parade.Journalism needs to reflect on how their reporting is enabling the far right and legitimising racist talking points in society. At least here in Germany the media plays a substantial role in the rise of the AFD and normalising right wing policies.
I think that the rise of AFD (and the Right in general) is tied more to the failures of the Left than to the journalism. If people have (or think to have) a problem they will vote for the party that will promise to solve it, not for the people who say them that they are too ignorant to understand that they have not a problem.
I don’t agree with your last paragraph. We face many crises today and to solve them is challenging our way of life. The political (far)right answers with simple, populist sentiments that will not solve anything: Just drive your car, just eat your meat, we need growth — look: migrants!
The left tries to explain very complex concepts, but all people hear is „you have to change your way of living“.
I don’t agree with your last paragraph.
That's fine, at least you try to have a civil discussion.
We face many crises today and to solve them is challenging our way of life. The political (far)right answers with simple, populist sentiments that will not solve anything: Just drive your car, just eat your meat, we need growth — look: migrants!
The problem here, for what I can see in Italy, is not the (far)right that answer with these simple slogans, but that for the most part the left did not even try to give an answer.
As a reasonable person I agree that one should look over the simple answer and look to the whole picture but I am (now) lucky to have a peaceful and relative easy life.
On the other hand I understand the ones that are less lucky and maybe struggle to put two meals on the table for their children (since I was very close to that situation at some point in the past) and I understand how simple is their reasoning when it come to choose between a party that care only about minorities and illegal immigrant and a party that promise that they will solve their problems. I cannot really blame them, honestly. And I am also pretty sure that even they don't really belive the (far) right will resolve their problem, it is just a way of saying "we need help, do something or sooner or later someone will resolve the problem in a way we all will not like"It is understood that to care about minorities is NOT a wrong thing to do but you cannot do only that.
What I see more and more is a growing disconnection between what the left think and do and what the normal people think they should do, be it more security on the street or better job conditions or whatever neede to have a normal life. From what I see in Italy, the left cannot cry that the right won when was the left itself that try so hard to loose.
The left tries to explain very complex concepts, but all people hear is „you have to change your way of living“.
Then, maybe, they are not doing it right.
Thank you for the long and detailed answer. I know that the situation in Italy is very different to Germany (were I‘m from). Even from the outside it seems that the left struggles and keeps infighting for years now. The financial crisis has caused huge damage and they don’t have any answers.
In the end your last sentence is what it boils down to: They aren’t doing it right.
At least here in Germany the media plays a substantial role in the rise of the AFD and normalising right wing policies.
You are suggesting incompetence where there is malicious intent. The capital in this country owns the mass media, and as they did in the past, they would rather sacrifice democracy than their wealth and power. Our conservatives are right wingers when push comes to shove, believe me.
This is about a poll conducted by a piblic brodcaster, your comment makes no sense in this context.
I was responding specifically to this:
At least here in Germany the media plays a substantial role in the rise of the AFD and normalising right wing policies.
I suppose I should quote that in the above comment, my bad
Fair, but I don't see how that quote implies this role to be unintentional, which seems to be the main poit in your original comment to me.
The public broadcasters are trying very hard to imitate the private media and keep quoting even the worst examples of them (the "Bild" tabloid for example) as a source. So the situation of commercial media has very well something to do with the situation of the public broadcasters.
Please don't excuse shitty journalism. These people earn good wages and have a standing in German media. They can speak (relatively) freely, but decide to do differently.
I'm not at all excusing it, I'm fact I am pointing out that the media is owned by our capital and will thus work to maintain their interests. And their interests are to not lose their wealth and power, more than maintaining democracy or anything else really.
So they, and by extension their media, are complicit in the rise of far right ideology, because fascism is better than a revolution for them, rich people tend to lose their wealth, power and occasionally their heads during revolutions.
I don't think a survey question can be racist. An answer can, and I'm not sure that not knowing the answer is better than knowing it.
Edit: No wrongthink on feddit.de, got it.
I get what you are saying but I disagree. Such a question comes with an implication that whoever posed the question thinks both answers are valid, unless the context implies otherwise.
Edit: No wrongthink on feddit.de, got it.
Oh come on now, people disliking your opinion is not the same thing as you being silenced, get over yourself.
The downvote button is not the "I disagree" button. It's a "this is irrelevant or destructive to the conversation" button. "I get what you're saying but I disagree" to me indicates you don't think my comment was either.
If the question was phrased as "Is the German national team diverse enough?" - which asks for the same opinion - would that be somehow better?
This type of finger-in-ear nonsense is the type of behaviour that leads to Germans supporting a genocide in 2024 and AfD's success being a surprise.
I treat it as a "I do not agree with this opinion" button.
And I do not.Outright stating that you are trying to destroy conversation- congrats, you have provided a great example of a real reason to downvote.
My pleasure. Idownvoted this one as well, because I disagree with your take.
Example:
A user posts a brain dead take on a topic = I downvote because it's not worth the effort to correctA user posts an incorrect statement about a topic I can meaningfully contribute = I'll not vote. I'll instead conribute my stance.
A user posts a neutral post and maybe I even agree with it = Upvote and maybe a comment.
This any anything inbetween. Sometimes the example user is myself ;)
This isn’t reddit, there’s not a rule for what the downvote means. Further, there’s no consequences for downvotes, so I don’t see how it stifles conversation.
This attitude towards the downvote button came from reddit, because Reddit started hiding responses with an arbitrary number of downvotes, which most Lemmy clients emulate. That's how it stifles conversation.
Reddit also has karma barriers for posting in various places, which literally stifles conversation, in that you will not be able to respond if you have enough downvotes. I don’t think it’s really comparable.
The downvote button is not the “I disagree” button.
Like it or not, that's how people generally use it.
Asking people if something is "white enough" is extremely racist, reproduces stereotypes and normalizes this bullshit. Nationality isn't a matter of skin color.
Sorry to see you downvoted, but hear me out. If I create a survey, for example, asking: "do we need to carry out a ethnic cleaning on a certain ethnicity of this country?" It implies that:
-
The survey creator and people who approve of it think that there is a substantial chunk of people who will say yes.
-
That the idea is a valid one and if you don't agree with it, it is valid for others to think that it is reasonable.
The idea of killing/kicking-out of people based on their race, is a part of what defines racism. The survey which validates such an idea, is racist.
I don't know how you got from point 1 (which is valid - but do you think there aren't Germans who will say yes?) to point 2?
How does an something being an answer on a survey make it a reasonable answer? If surveys should be limited to reasonable answers, how do we ever quantify how many unreasonable people exist?
The problem here is that it's a yes or no question. It's not "how do we solve problem x" but "should we just deal with x by doing y?" - which is a call for action in that exact line of thinking.
This survey is not objective, it's subjective, with racism as part of the subjectivity.
-
A question can be wrong (Have you stopped beating your wife?). Especially in a questionnaire, you need to be careful when formulating a question, so to not skew the results. A question can also be 'wrong' when the outcome is useless no matter what results you get (in scientific research you actually try to achieve the exact opposite, so that even if a hypothesis is invalidated, you'd gain some useful knowledge)
Is this in answer to something or just a passing thought?
I (think I) see what you're getting at. Wrong isn't necessarily the same as racist (although I would assume racist questions to be a subset of wrong questions). I think you're bright enough to think of a racist question that mimics the 'wrong question' example I gave.
If you are posting in good faith, please look up push polling.
The right questions can be used to influence public opinion.
It can be. Great question from German media would have been if they asked the audience something to reflect on the treatment of Mesut Oezil in the past for example. It was a complete racist shitshow at that time and nobody was bothered.