My Thoughts to AIPS Conference

MY THOUGHTS WHILE VIEWING THE VIDEO

CAF/UEFA/FIFA is trying to do something that is very challenging. Financial inequality built up over time is hard to undo. The white community in all countries built up their finances through domination of those not white over centuries. It will be very hard to build up the finances of those who were dominated absent a similar unfairness whites had. We shall see what happens .... Racism can not be ended, nor can bias. Racism or bias is something all human beings have. The day racism stops is the day no one refers to themselves as male or female or have last names or call themselves christian or muslim. Racism is another word for classification or labeling. We all use labels as humans, thus all are racists. Bias is required to make orders or rankings. All humans have bias, positive or negative. When you give money to help someone in your church that is a positive bias. When you help a nephew or blood relation that is a positive bias. When you hinder someone who does not look like you or is of your religion that is a negative bias.  All humans will always be racists or biased. The question is, how can negative bias not be applied? that is the question. How do you stop christians with a negative bias to muslims from hindering muslims? how do you stop men with a negative bias to women from hindering women? how you do stop whites with a negative bias to blacks from hindering blacks? and to the three aforementioned question vice versa? 

Seven minutes to explain apartheid in south africa... I give him credit for trying, large historical moments are not easy to put into seven minutes. ... I oppose his line of argument, it is not that he is lying, he told truth through it all. But the goal in his argument should had been to show how south africa can be used as an example to a country that went from legal negative bias to having far fewer legal negative biases while creating a financial platform for those influences negatively by the negative biased laws of the past. He failed in that. What south africa proves is , changes in law can not change financial development over time? Blacks or Colored or Indians in South Africa can own land or businesses But the fiscal wealth gained in the white community in south africa over centuries can not be undone in a equal or fair fiscal environment. Sequentially, how do you implement a system of black/colored/indian fiscal growth that does not take from white fiscal standing? South africa doesn't have an answer, but that is the challenge in UEFA. As the first guest said, from a global perspective, the beautiful game is functionally aracial. Notice the word functional. It is just words. Five confederations, no geograph is blockaded. Owners of soccer teams come in all genders/religions/phenotype/age/heritage. Coaches come in the same multiraciality, as do players. The problem is in FIFA member countries that have multiracial societies, ala the second guest from south africa. How do multiracial societies mirror what FIFA is globally? The usa had a negro league at one time, mostly financed by whites. Most countries in humanity are not strongly multiracial, meaning most countries on earth , over 90% of the people reflect one heritage/culture but in brasil/usa/russia/china/france/uk et cetera, they have more multicultural populaces. So how do they mirror FIFA's global structure. I will throw an idea out there, I Don't think it is functional but for the sake of debating. What if south africa had a colored league/black league/indian league designed to foster blacks/coloreds/indians in south africa in ownership positions/coaching positions/training positions. IT is not in my opinion, the most functional idea but places in a multiracial country a similar design to fifa on the globe. Instead of confederations by region with member states, leagues by phenotype/heritage with member clubs?

This guy talks about black sports news reporters. He does not lie like the man before, but I don't like his argument, like the man before. His focus is on the complaining of black sports news reporters to the lack of presence or opportunity to black people in the white only , from owner to player, financially major sports leagues. I am more of a functionalists than a complainer, fix the problem is more important to me than carrying on with blames or complaints or greivances. 

I know baseball in the USA. He talks about how one reporter said :"why don't they put a little color in baseball"  

But the truth is baseball had color, it was called the negro leagues in the usa, the mexican league in mexico, the nippon league in nippon commonly known as japan.  The problem wasn't the lack of non white baseball players. The problem was the lack of financial opportunity for negro league teams in the usa. How can a negro league team grow when black people were stone walled from owning land in most of the usa before the year 2000.  

The yankees themselves was a barn storming team, originally playing at the polo grounds in manhattan, not the bronx, in NYC , owned by the ny giants, who moved to san francisco later. Having your own stadium counts. But in 1930s 40s 50s 60s mississippi, louisiana,texas, arkansas,georgia,carolinas, florida white populaces was going to allow black ownership of land, when the white populaces did not allow black people to own their own bus services or go into hospitals.  

The first problem with black news reporters in the past as an example on what to do now is how dysfunctional they were. Black people needed the ability to own in places where white people didn't allow them to own.  

The second problem with black news reporters is they never pushed a simple truth. The american or national league needed to add the negro league as an equal, it is that simple. But the ownership group, all white , of Major league baseball didn't want to share, didn't want to have an association like that. As I said before, negative bias affecting others.  

To mexico or japan, the problem is similar. The white statian owners in the american league or national league did not want those two leagues to be seen as equal to the leagues in mexico or japan in the same way they didn't want the negro league to be an equal.  

The black sports news reporters didn't focus on that inequality. They thought it was better to focus on player rosters than equal leagues. That is the lesson for UEFA, maybe countries in uefa that have communities not present in ownership/administration/coaching need leagues for thier community. If wales can have a league, why can't england have a black league? But, don't expect black media people to talk about it. They were and still are focused on being employed not ownership.  

The next speaker, a woman, spoke truth, Sport is exclusive by default. She mentioned her first olympics, women's participation on the field was ten percent, now it is nearly half. 

She focuses on swimming, a sport she love. They focused on Black participation. In the 1960s, no coaching/committee positions was offered to women. Tennis/golf, skiing/ skating are the only paid athletics can pay on its own for female athletes. 

She offer a question, what did I learn as a thirteen year old olympian<years in the olympics>, that she would not had learned otherwise. 

She said the olympic village gave her a place to be entirely human. I never heard that before. She mentioned a very telling story on her relationships with wilma rudoplh , muhammed ali, and a basketball player who lifted her freely. 

I think her point, is that sport over time will wither the frictions between humans, but it will take time. I wonder, do people have the patience? can sport withstand the rebuttals? I wonder. 

The next guest was a woman, she spoke on kaepernick and the nfl as a symbol of change.  

She talked about her time as a reporter in washington d.c. and talking about the former name of the team.  

She makes a true point, that the owner of the Washington NFL team said he never would change the name, but that ended in 2020 as the financiers said the name had to change. 

She made a point that the change was led through media but finalized through sponsors. 

I agree to her the point, the strongest financial position is to reach all groups. Any sport looking for the best global participation must represent and uses a linguistical point.  

In the beautiful game, in the usa, the mens team is the united states mens national team, the womens team is the united states womens national team.  

In Mexico/Conmebol/UEFA/CAf/AFC most male sports teams are referred to as the national team, covering all, while the female team is the womens team. I never thought of that. I wonder how many football associations designate the mens team as male and the womens team as female.  

Her last point is correct, if humanity is shared between men side women, then no team absent one gender can be determined as representing all. And I concur, it does matter cause the concept that all are represented by one plagues all racial restrictions in sport or outside of it. 

The next guest spoke in spanish, I don't know spanish. They need to have multilingual subtitles for those segments, he finished in english. 

His point was extremely thoughtful to me. He said, I paraphrase, sports journalists outside the anglophone or most followed media need to highlight issues. That is interesting. In NYC, stations like telemundo/univision existed my entire life it seems and in that time, I never thought to ask, how they cover the issues in the sporting world.  

In latin america, negras are oppressed by blancos but in the usa, all blancos/negras/mulattos/mestizoes/zambos/indios while all latino are considered people of color 

So, I wonder about the narratives in latino media in the usa, did it speak of issues that for many latinos, will hearken to issues they did not deal with in latin america.  

I don't think FIFA has more power to influence change. PArt of what makes FIFA great is that it gives space to various cultures in humanity. During the cold war, he soviet union had an f.a. just like the u.s.a. . That is not a small thing when most organizations in humanity didn't allow for allies of the USA to be amongst allies of the USSR.  

This speaker has a view of the world, the way he wants. His view demands all in humanity apply a functional ruleset to their life, no negative biases to any gender/phenotype/religion. But I think FIFA is not the organization to do that. FIFA has grown or survived by allowing for human beings to be other from each other. Let the afghanistan people dictate afghanistan. Let the iranian people dictate iran.  

I support no gender bias, but not all human people's feel that way, think that way. Let the people in a country dictate. Outsiders telling groups what to do is always dangerous. In parallel we as humans have to accept the violent actions that lead to change as well.  

His view is, FIFA need to push an agenda on all human communities, but how will that help FIFA? But the answer is why does he say this. Nonviolence can only change the law and can only implement through use of legal systems or bureaucracies. FIFA serves the purpose for some to implement absent violence.  

England or the USA or China or Russia or Brasil or India have to fix their own internal schisms. Not every country in humanity will be a sweden/finland/cape verde where 90% of the people are of one community so frictions are tiny in government or finance. 

I agree with the last speaker who said it bluntly, implementation of advised changes is key. To put it another way, in war, like all violence, a fire exists inside the warrior, that makes action, doing, the natural way. The peaceful is a way of patience, a way of calm against a storm. But peace-agents acts that , accepting of a centuries journey, emboldened by the smallest of steps. But she is calling on peace agents of CAF to have the expediency from the warrior while the purpose from the peace agent.