My question was "would it have had racial connotations...."
Not "would it be racist...?"
Do you see the difference? I hope so because you (along with a few others) tend to be mindful of when people throw around the accusation of racism (or any -ism) on the forums and I was deliberately being mindful of this.
I was hypothesising about whether KM would have even used the term gorilla had Berkeley been ethnically black, as I would then have said he may have felt unable to use the same term in such circumstances for fear of being called a racist.
And as for my subsequent post. I said it wasn't overtly racist. I stand by that. He didn't call him a direct racist term in the column but he used language that others could then use to accuse him of racism, whether implicit or explicit or somewhere in between. But I haven't accused him of being anything.
My sole personal opinion on KM is that he shouldn't be anywhere near a newspaper following his shameful behaviour after Hillsborough.
I thought it was a matter of record that there has been a history of racism in football (supporters?) with clubs being fined if their fans taunted players over the colour of their skin?
These taunts, historically, usually involved: likening to monkeys or getting back to the jungle.
So it's incredibly naive to think that likening a player to a gorilla isn't at all related to such historical events.Particularly from a man that has such a despicable history.
Except of course he didn't liken any physical characteristics to a gorilla. And McKenzie was unaware of the ethnicity of Barkley.
But the lesson seems clear. If you have any colour in your ethnic heritage then you are a special case and cannot be insulted.
And there was me thinking this was a pretty clear case of ridiculous political correctness. Guess i was wrong.
Sure he was, sure he was...
You have proof of this how?
From his own statement.
Kelvin MacKenzie suspended from The Sun after 'racist' column on Everton footballer
But Mr MacKenzie has responded to say he did not know of footballer Ross Barkley's family background and added that it was “beyond parody” for critics to describe his article as “racist”.
You can prove otherwise of course?
Obviously with McKenzie being such a renowned football pundit he would be intimately acquainted with Barkley's background.
I didn't know his heritage. Did you?
'Perhaps unfairly, I have always judged Ross Barkley as one of our dimmest footballers.
'There is something about the lack of reflection in his eyes which makes me certain not only are the lights not on, there is definitely nobody at home.
'I get a similar feeling when seeing a gorilla at the zoo. The physique is magnificent but it's the eyes that tell the story.
'So it came as no surprise to me that the Everton star copped a nasty right-hander in a nightclub for allegedly eyeing up an attractive young lady who, as they say, was 'spoken for'.
'The reality is that at £60,000 a week and being both thick and single, he is an attractive catch in the Liverpool area, where the only men with similar pay packets are drug dealers and therefore not at nightclubs, as they are often guests of Her Majesty.'
No comparison to the intelligence or appearance of an ape at all //static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif
I didn't know who he was until people rose up to the defence of Mckenzie for his stupid column. 
Aren't Columnists responsible for their columns any more? Particularly ex-Editors who were sacked why?
Yeah, who would call their kid Steve when their surname is Stephens. Bloody Americans.
Edward Woodward parents would if their surname was Stephens