Racism and football

[utah_heretic]

Originally Posted by Deuce

That is fine that you think that changing the outcome of sporting events is stupid. I don't happen to agree with you.

I took offense to your apparent attempt at justification of the act that in my view and experience is unjustifiable.

If you were not trying to justify it, then your point was lost in the statements you made.

Racism is vile... it is illegal, in most modern contries. so why not cut through the crap and come down hard on illegal behavior instead of trying to sidestrep the issue and divert the attention away from it with economic discussions.

Ummm...I almost hesitate to do this, because of how seriously everybody's emotions are likely to be tied up in this. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to say a couple of things...

Please understand that I am not a racist, I do not condone racist beliefs or actions based on them. I further believe that it is a person's personal moral duty to confront it whenever it rears it's ugly head. That being said...
Racism is not illegal. Racist remarks and and chants, while deplorable, at least within the bounds of the U.S. do in fact constitute freedom of speech (insofar as they do not constitute an overt threat to another person). I wholeheartedly support a policy of systematic confrontation when encountered, racism only thrives when it is allowed to exist unconfronted. But I hardly see where the outcome of a soccer match ought to be determined by the behavior of a team's fans. A more just punishment would be to force the team to play the game without it's fans, thus losing the revenue of the home game. A sanction which has in the past been meted out for teams whose fans had been so violent and abusive that they were forced to call the game.

Ska, I don't know if it is the reference you are referring to, but I recall from "How Soccer Explains the World" by Franklin Foer, that he argued that there were several instances where seemingly anti-semitic chants among some teams in England were actually better explained as a form of tribalism in today's globalized game, holdovers from the original demographics when the team came into being, which often had no particular reference to current fans or players for that team.

OK, call me a racist, trash my post, I blame my fascination with semiotics and semantics. Remember, words only carry the power we grant them.

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by utah_heretic

Ummm...I almost hesitate to do this, because of how seriously everybody's emotions are likely to be tied up in this. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to say a couple of things...

Please understand that I am not a racist, I do not condone racist beliefs or actions based on them. I further believe that it is a person's personal moral duty to confront it whenever it rears it's ugly head. That being said...
Racism is not illegal. Racist remarks and and chants, while deplorable, at least within the bounds of the U.S. do in fact constitute freedom of speech (insofar as they do not constitute an overt threat to another person). I wholeheartedly support a policy of systematic confrontation when encountered, racism only thrives when it is allowed to exist unconfronted. But I hardly see where the outcome of a soccer match ought to be determined by the behavior of a team's fans. A more just punishment would be to force the team to play the game without it's fans, thus losing the revenue of the home game. A sanction which has in the past been meted out for teams whose fans had been so violent and abusive that they were forced to call the game.

Ska, I don't know if it is the reference you are referring to, but I recall from "How Soccer Explains the World" by Franklin Foer, that he argued that there were several instances where seemingly anti-semitic chants among some teams in England were actually better explained as a form of tribalism in today's globalized game, holdovers from the original demographics when the team came into being, which often had no particular reference to current fans or players for that team.

OK, call me a racist, trash my post, I blame my fascination with semiotics and semantics. Remember, words only carry the power we grant them.

Yes you are right it was a poor choice of words. Racism is not illegal.
I was wondering how long it was going to be before freedom of speech was going to be debated.

Speech is a tool. It is a right within the united states... however just like any tool it can be abused and used to harm another human being.
When it is used to harm then it becomes a whole different issue all together.

You have the right to free speech and i do not have the right to not be offended.

You are right... you or anyone else here has the constitutional right to monkey chant til your hearts content.

I just thought that after 200 odd years that we as a people had progressed to the point that we were able to know that having a right and having the wisdom to use that right wisely should not be two separate issues.

I see that I was overly optimistic and i stand humbled in the face of human nature.

Sorry my bad!

[utah_heretic]

Originally Posted by Deuce

Yes you are right it was a poor choice of words. Racism is not illegal.
I was wondering how long it was going to be before freedom of speech was going to be debated.

Speech is a tool. It is a right within the united states... however just like any tool it can be abused and used to harm another human being.
When it is used to harm then it becomes a whole different issue all together.

You have the right to free speech and i do not have the right to not be offended.

You are right... you or anyone else here has the constitutional right to monkey chant til your hearts content.

I just thought that after 200 odd years that we as a people had progressed to the point that we were able to know that having a right and having the wisdom to use that right wisely should not be two separate issues.

I see that I was overly optimistic and i stand humbled in the face of human nature.

Sorry my bad!

I should think that while I agree that the posession of and responsible use of rights are necessarily intertwined, that what was ultimately at issue in this thread was what constitutes an appropriate empowered entity to punish its abuses, and what constitutes an appropriate punishment.

Perhaps I misunderstood the thread. My understanding of Ska's earliest position was that there was a concern that within the context of a sporting event, that the contexts present in everyday life which allow us to identify what constitutes racist behavior may be skewed. After all, identifying racist behavior is not like identifying pregnancy...you can't just see if the rabbit died. This is not to say that there are not obvious and easily identifiable examples of where it does and continues to occur, but rather there may be occasions where actions and or chants would appear different to an outsider looking in than an insider looking out within the context of an individual sporting event and the traditions surrounding it. As such, it may be inappropriate to give the power to "award a goal" to the opposing team to the referee on the field.

Now I have a healthy and natural distrust for all governing bodies as breeding grounds for corruption at best and at worst, applied malice. After all, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. As such, I think that the less power we give governing bodies the better under most circumstances. However, if you'll review what I wrote, not only did I agree that FIFA, UEFA, MLS and other soccer governing bodies had the right (and consequentially under some circumstances the obligation) to punish fan activities of this nature, I suggested a more appropriate means of sanction.

But I either failed to make my point or you failed to read what I wrote.

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by utah_heretic

I should think that while I agree that the posession of and responsible use of rights are necessarily intertwined, that what was ultimately at issue in this thread was what constitutes an appropriate empowered entity to punish its abuses, and what constitutes an appropriate punishment.

Perhaps I misunderstood the thread. My understanding of Ska's earliest position was that there was a concern that within the context of a sporting event, that the contexts present in everyday life which allow us to identify what constitutes racist behavior may be skewed. After all, identifying racist behavior is not like identifying pregnancy...you can't just see if the rabbit died. This is not to say that there are not obvious and easily identifiable examples of where it does and continues to occur, but rather there may be occasions where actions and or chants would appear different to an outsider looking in than an insider looking out within the context of an individual sporting event and the traditions surrounding it. As such, it may be inappropriate to give the power to "award a goal" to the opposing team to the referee on the field.

That may have been his original intent. I believe his basis for argument may be in his uncanny ability to be the "devils Advocate" in any argument. I do not debate the existence, or non-existence of a chant of "Tottenham Jews" nor do I believe an Ethnic reference is rellevent to a debate on Racism. The aforementioned Ethnic reference is a completely separate issue to "Racism".

I don't believe that it is possible to dismiss Monkey Chanting as a "traditional" chant that has a misunderstood origin.
Monkey Chanting is a more modern phenomenon that does not have the same traditional origin as the above ethnic reference. Monkey chanting came into popular usage around the time in recent history that blacks entered the once all white realm of modern football. You may argue that it is a coincidence but I argue that it is obvious to most people inside and outside the issue that it is racially motivated.

Originally Posted by utah_heretic

Now I have a healthy and natural distrust for all governing bodies as breeding grounds for corruption at best and at worst, applied malice. After all, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not out to get you. As such, I think that the less power we give governing bodies the better under most circumstances. However, if you'll review what I wrote, not only did I agree that FIFA, UEFA, MLS and other soccer governing bodies had the right (and consequentially under some circumstances the obligation) to punish fan activities of this nature, I suggested a more appropriate means of sanction.

I am sorry that you have such an an issue with governing bodies. I do not share, nor do I agree with you or Ska on this issue. I believe, the same as you tough, that the governing bodies in this case have an obligation to act. I believe bold and decisive measures need to be employed.

Another possibility exists in your statement that "just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you!" is that it also just as easily means that they are not out to get you and that you are just simply paranoid!

Originally Posted by utah_heretic

But I either failed to make my point or you failed to read what I wrote.

I read your post and I believe that I gleaned from it your intent and so responded. If you believe that I missed the point then you did not express your idea as clearly and succinctly as you originally thought.



You claim that you have a fascination with semiotics and semantics. So I will conceed that I am not willing to debate semantics with you as i will be at a disadvantage. I believe that the discussion was about racism and monkey chanting and what should be done to address the issue.

I believe that i have made my point and so I will not pursue the issue further with you. We will simply have to agree to disagree in this instance.

[Old Ska]

Originally Posted by Deuce

I do not debate the existence, or non-existence of a chant of "Tottenham Jews" nor do I believe an Ethnic reference is rellevent to a debate on Racism.

Well, if you ask people in the hard sciences (and these days even most social scientists) they will tell you that there is no such thing as race. Race is merely a useful fiction to talk about things like culture and ethnicity (usually in the context of identity and the other).

That is not to say that racism doesn't exist, it most definately does.

Here is an example that gets at the crux of the matter: I have seen fans of teams with black players make monkey noises when black players on the other team touch the ball, but not when their own black players touch the ball. Is the primary motivation of the monkey-noise-makers in such an instance the promotion of racism? If so, why not do it to all black players? Or is the primary motivation something other than racism? If so, how do you start sorting out what should be punished and what shouldn't.

And I have a follow-up question.

[utah_heretic]

As I suspected, I really ought not to have involved myself in this discussion...I occasionally find myself in a position where I agree with somebody's position and yet find myself in disagreement with some portion of something they say. Perhaps it is a valid criticism that I've lost the forest for the trees in this case. For this, I appologize.

You are no doubt correct that I was unable to adequately convey my point within the context of the overall thread. Further, I've no quarrel with you regarding the specific instance of monkey chanting as being obviously racially motivated and abhorrent in general.

However, at the risk of adding further fuel to the fire, I was interested to know why you classified antisemitism and racism as seperate issues, and if so, how so. You brought up the reference to "Tottenham Jews" example and the antisemitic cheers surrounding that team, but referred to them as "ethnic references". I'm not trying to bait you with this question, but rather to arrive at a clearer understanding of your position. I'll understand however if you prefer to simply let the matter rest.

Once again, I'm sorry for going off track in this thread.

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by utah_heretic

As I suspected, I really ought not to have involved myself in this discussion...I occasionally find myself in a position where I agree with somebody's position and yet find myself in disagreement with some portion of something they say. Perhaps it is a valid criticism that I've lost the forest for the trees in this case. For this, I appologize.

You are no doubt correct that I was unable to adequately convey my point within the context of the overall thread. Further, I've no quarrel with you regarding the specific instance of monkey chanting as being obviously racially motivated and abhorrent in general.

However, at the risk of adding further fuel to the fire, I was interested to know why you classified antisemitism and racism as seperate issues, and if so, how so. You brought up the reference to "Tottenham Jews" example and the antisemitic cheers surrounding that team, but referred to them as "ethnic references". I'm not trying to bait you with this question, but rather to arrive at a clearer understanding of your position. I'll understand however if you prefer to simply let the matter rest.

Once again, I'm sorry for going off track in this thread.

I originally referred to the tottenham chant because it was used earlier as an example by Old Ska, that in my opinion was used to justify monkey chanting.
I am not familiar with the chant or its origins. I referred to it only to say that it specifically was irrellevent to the argument in the context it was presented. (That context was that it was a traditional chant that had a mis-understood origin) I had originally called the chant an ethnic "slur" but felt it necessary to change it to "reference" because I was not familiar with its history.
I can see where I did not express that clearly.

I am not trying to say anyone is wrong for debating what they believe is the "solution" i was merely stating that I disagree with the solution that was being offered, and that I had my own belief in what the solution is.

I, too, have no quarrel with you, or Ska, I just disagree with the solution. As you disagree with my proffered solution and so I believe it is best to agree to disagree and move on to a different discussion.

[Aero]

Originally Posted by Old Ska

Here is an example that gets at the crux of the matter: I have seen fans of teams with black players make monkey noises when black players on the other team touch the ball, but not when their own black players touch the ball. Is the primary motivation of the monkey-noise-makers in such an instance the promotion of racism? If so, why not do it to all black players? Or is the primary motivation something other than racism?

Does it matter if the primary motivation is something else? It is still racist. Or is racism okay with you as long as it is disguised behind other motivations?

[Old Ska]

Originally Posted by Aero

Does it matter if the primary motivation is something else? It is still racist. Or is racism okay with you as long as it is disguised behind other motivations?

Your premise is very ignorant. In no way is racism okay with me. You seem to think that if you aren't for using the atomic bomb to combat it you support it. How simple. I simply think that the response need not be ridiculously heavy-handed.

I am merely bringing up the point that what occurs on the terraces, particularly in Europe, is seldom as cut and dried as it seems to outsiders. Is it racist in intent in the example I give above? I am not sure. Is it racist in consequence? Yes, it is, but a lot of things can be taken that way by different people...even things at RES (like the tune of "Ellinger's Army", the singing of national anthems or flying of national flags)!

If the fundamental issues are not clear, the response should not be overwhelming.

[Aero]

Originally Posted by Old Ska

Your premise is very ignorant.

My premise is that racism should not exist in any form whatsoever no matter what the motivation happens to be. If that is an ignorant premise, then I guess I am ignorant. In fact, I'd hate to be anything but ignorant on this issue if that is what you are going to call it.

In no way is racism okay with me.

Then why do you continue to justify people making monkey noises to black players as something that might not be racist just because it happens at a soccer match?

You seem to think that if you aren't for using the atomic bomb to combat it you support it. How simple.

No, not really. What I really think is that anyone that supports racism in any form is supporting racism no matter what their motivations might be. I guess when you think about that really is pretty simple, so I guess you are right.

I am merely bringing up the point that what occurs on the terraces, particularly in Europe, is seldom as cut and dried as it seems to outsiders. Is it racist in intent in the example I give above? I am not sure.

I am. Anytime that someone makes monkey noises towards a black person that is racist. It doesn't matter what context it happens in. It doesn't matter what the motivation behind it is. It is racism. I'm surprised that anyone in the world would argue otherwise.

Is it racist in consequence? Yes, it is

Then it should be stopped, not justified. If the consequence is racism, then it is racist. Seems pretty clear and simple to me.

but a lot of things can be taken that way by different people

Exactly how else would monkey noises being made when a black player touches the ball be interpreted?

If the fundamental issues are not clear, the response should not be overwhelming.

I guess that is the difference between the two of us. The fundamental issue is very clear to me. I see that making monkey noises towards any black player as being racist no matter what your primary motivation may be. You seem to want to muddy up the waters by bringing in some other motivation as justifation for racist behavior. The only thing that isn't clear to me is why you continue to justify racist behavior as something different.