Racism and football

[Old Ska]

Seriously, a lot of people believe the American Flag to be a symbol of race-based oppression of black people in American history. Should the flag be banned at RSL matches?

Deseret was a place where not only could you enslave black people, you could also enslave Indians! The song "Ellinger's Army" is based on a tune I assume most people in RES identify as "In Our Lovely Deseret". Yes, lovely Deseret where we used to be able to have blacks and Indians as property.

The tune for "In Our Lovely Deseret" is originally the tune for "God Save Ireland" (also known as "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" and the former Irish national anthem), and why the lyrics seem tame compared to today's gangsta rap lyrics, in their original context they were very controversial, probably akin in some peoples' minds to singing a pop song in support of Osama Bin Laden. Is that appropriate for singing at RES? What if there is an Irish protestant/royalist on the field? That player won't know that the song being sung is thought to be a Mormon hymn by most of the people there, he will think it is an ethnic slam.

I have a number of friends in the Chicago Fire supporters community who are black. I recall watching the second leg of the semifinals against DC United where Chicago won 4 - 0. Adu came in at the half I think, and every time Adu got shut down there were a few comments like "take that, ******" from the black guys. At some point lake in the match someone (still a black guy) said "that'll show that country ******". You could have heard a pin drop for a good 15 seconds after that. Someone finally said something like "that's not even cool, man". On one hand the act of calling someone a ****** could be seen as an overtly racist act, but in this case it clearly wasn't. On the other hand, adding the adjective "country" would probably not seem to be horribly inflammatory to people not familiar with black culture in the US, but it is. And we want to have refs be able to make snap judgements on these kinds of issues that could have impact on the outcome of games?

And that isn't even scratching very deeply to get these examples*. If I really tried I could find many many more instances that show that teasing out what is racist and what is not is a tricky business. Do white guys like you, me, and Deuce decide what is racist? Do we completely ignore larger community perceptions and let minority voices have the only say? Do we look to what offends the players? (You think Chivas dives now? Watch them be able to find ethnic slurs from the crowd everywhere they play if we give them THAT power!) With how murky all of that is, you want to hand the power to influence games based on such things over to guys who don't seem to be able to figure out Law 11?! Now I know you well enough to know that you probably would not be comfortable getting up in someone's face if they were being racist, and that for someone like you it would be easier to have the refs do it for you (I have a harder time understanding why Deuce would be for this though, because I know he wouldn't have a problem with confronting a racist). But you also know what I look like, and if you saw someone acting racist you could always tell me and I would go confront them. If I was vastly out-numbered I would grab some of the crew to take with me. In fact, I will speak for everyone in the RCB this one time only and say that any of those cats would be willing to confront someone acting racist.

*I am not saying that I believe all of these things to be racist, just that there are people who do legitimately thing so, and a case could be made that they are.

**What is edited out by the censoring system is what is often called "the 'n' word"

[Aero]

Originally Posted by Old Ska

Seriously, a lot of people believe the American Flag to be a symbol of race-based oppression of black people in American history. Should the flag be banned at RSL matches?

Unlike monkey noises being made whenever a black player touches the ball, the American Flag can have other interpretations. Sure it might mean what you suggest to some people, but to many others it doesn't. I fail to see how making monkey noises at black players can be interpreted as anything but racist. It only has one meaning, unlike the American Flag.

Deseret was a place where not only could you enslave black people, you could also enslave Indians! The song "Ellinger's Army" is based on a tune I assume most people in RES identify as "In Our Lovely Deseret". Yes, lovely Deseret where we used to be able to have blacks and Indians as property.

Again, that's one interpretation of many unlike monkey noises being made.

The tune for "In Our Lovely Deseret" is originally the tune for "God Save Ireland" (also known as "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" and the former Irish national anthem), and why the lyrics seem tame compared to today's gangsta rap lyrics, in their original context they were very controversial, probably akin in some peoples' minds to singing a pop song in support of Osama Bin Laden. Is that appropriate for singing at RES? What if there is an Irish protestant/royalist on the field? That player won't know that the song being sung is thought to be a Mormon hymn by most of the people there, he will think it is an ethnic slam.

Once again, several different interpretations unlike making monkey noises at a black player.

If you can come up with some other interpretation of monkey noises aimed at black players I'd love to hear it.

And we want to have refs be able to make snap judgements on these kinds of issues that could have impact on the outcome of games?

I don't think that I have ever advocated allowing the refs to make snap judgements on this during a game. I do believe that soccer is a sport. FIFA and UEFA are in charge of the sport and need to do whatever they feel is in the best interest of the sport. If they decide to punish teams that have fans yelling racist things, it is well within their rights. Just like the NFL can call penalties and fine people for doing nothing more than celebrating.

And that isn't even scratching very deeply to get these examples*. If I really tried I could find many many more instances that show that teasing out what is racist and what is not is a tricky business.

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. I can't think of any other explanation for monkey noises aimed at black players, especially when the player that it is aimed feels it is racist.

Do white guys like you, me, and Deuce decide what is racist?

We probably don't get the final say, but that doesn't mean that we can't recognize racism when we see it, especially when the player in question took it as racist. If he thought it was racist, I don't think that it is much of a stretch for us to see it as racist.

Do we look to what offends the players?

I have never advocated stopping all behavior that offends the players. I just believe that it is possible to annoy and get under the skin of opposing players without having to resort to racist behavior to do so.

(You think Chivas dives now? Watch them be able to find ethnic slurs from the crowd everywhere they play if we give them THAT power!) With how murky all of that is, you want to hand the power to influence games based on such things over to guys who don't seem to be able to figure out Law 11?!

Again, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was in favor of giving this kind of authority to the refs. You have manufactured that opinion for me because it isn't mine.

Now I know you well enough

You don't know me at all. In fact, out of everyone that posts on these messageboards regularly, you are probably the person that knows me the least.

to know that you probably would not be comfortable getting up in someone's face

I've gotten in plenty of people's faces over things that they have said and done. You obviously haven't been paying attention at all if you think that I'm afraid to confront people when I feel that they are doing something that isn't right or not telling the truth. I have stood up for what I believe to be right over and over again. Again, just more proof that you don't have any clue about me. You should probably stop pretending that you do.

But you also know what I look like, and if you saw someone acting racist you could always tell me and I would go confront them.

So, if we had been at the match that started this whole thread, you could have been counted on to go over and stop the monkey noises, right?

[bordelais7]

Now I know you well enough to know that you probably would not be comfortable getting up in someone's face if they were being racist, and that for someone like you it would be easier to have the refs do it for you (I have a harder time understanding why Deuce would be for this though, because I know he wouldn't have a problem with confronting a racist). But you also know what I look like, and if you saw someone acting racist you could always tell me and I would go confront them. If I was vastly out-numbered I would grab some of the crew to take with me. In fact, I will speak for everyone in the RCB this one time only and say that any of those cats would be willing to confront someone acting racist.

I see. So anyone who favors league or organization imposed fines and/or penalties against teams whose fans are involved in racist activities only holds that opinion because he is just too "chicken" to take care of the problem himself?

[Deuce]

Well stated Aero and Bordy...

Ska, I believe that UEFA, FIFA, the FA and MLS to name a few, are obligated to act on Racism. I believe they need to utilize bold and decisive measures that will leave no doubt in the mind of any man woman or child, that they are serious about addressing the issue. If that means affecting the outcome of a match or two in order to send a clear message, then they have my full blessing.

Whether I agree with how they deal with it or not is irrelevant because I know they will not be calling on me for my opinion.

That being said I want to address one or two of the examples you gave in your apparent continual justification of monkey chanting and the racist intent in that "specific act".

Deseret was a place where not only could you enslave black people, you could also enslave Indians! The song "Ellinger's Army" is based on a tune I assume most people in RES identify as "In Our Lovely Deseret". Yes, lovely Deseret where we used to be able to have blacks and Indians as property.

The tune for "In Our Lovely Deseret" is originally the tune for "God Save Ireland" (also known as "Give Ireland Back to the Irish" and the former Irish national anthem), and why the lyrics seem tame compared to today's gangsta rap lyrics, in their original context they were very controversial, probably akin in some peoples' minds to singing a pop song in support of Osama Bin Laden. Is that appropriate for singing at RES? What if there is an Irish protestant/royalist on the field? That player won't know that the song being sung is thought to be a Mormon hymn by most of the people there, he will think it is an ethnic slam.

I get annoyed when people lump me into the religious majority simply because I live somewhere. When that happens I do not feel like I am threatened, not like I did when I was with my step dad and he was called a ****** or when he endured monkey chanting.

People with miniscule amount of common sense can conclude that a song that borrows a tune from historic or popular song, with the words changed to innocuous lyrics is totally different than what you describe.

Because people singing the tunes, that you describe, would have other symbols and other supporting songs that would add clarity to their intent. Maybe a symbol like a burning effigy of a monarch, or religious figure, an orange jacket, white dunce cap, white gown or something that would add a power that a simple tune could not possibly convey.

On the other hand, it is incredibly difficult to mis-interpret the meaning of monkey chanting.

I have a number of friends in the Chicago Fire supporters community who are black. I recall watching the second leg of the semifinals against DC United where Chicago won 4 - 0. Adu came in at the half I think, and every time Adu got shut down there were a few comments like "take that, ******" from the black guys. At some point lake in the match someone (still a black guy) said "that'll show that country ******". You could have heard a pin drop for a good 15 seconds after that. Someone finally said something like "that's not even cool, man". On one hand the act of calling someone a ****** could be seen as an overtly racist act, but in this case it clearly wasn't. On the other hand, adding the adjective "country" would probably not seem to be horribly inflammatory to people not familiar with black culture in the US, but it is. And we want to have refs be able to make snap judgements on these kinds of issues that could have impact on the outcome of games?

You asserting that blacks using that word or prefacing it with another less offensive word, somehow, makes it "all better" is beyond my comprehension. And I might add patently offensive.

I am not going to pretend that because one or more black people use that word that it is now ok for it to be used in common conversation and that it suddenly does not mean the same thing anymore. Just like I don't believe that all white folks in Utah are polygamist, racist, slave owners just because a contemporaneous law said it was OK to own slaves and have multiple marriages.

The meaning and intent behind that word and monkey chanting are offensive to more than just blacks and whites. AND the meaning is quite clear. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Do white guys like you, me, and Deuce decide what is racist? Do we completely ignore larger community perceptions and let minority voices have the only say? Do we look to what offends the players? (You think Chivas dives now? Watch them be able to find ethnic slurs from the crowd everywhere they play if we give them THAT power!) With how murky all of that is, you want to hand the power to influence games based on such things over to guys who don't seem to be able to figure out Law 11?! Now I know you well enough to know that you probably would not be comfortable getting up in someone's face if they were being racist, and that for someone like you it would be easier to have the refs do it for you (I have a harder time understanding why Deuce would be for this though, because I know he wouldn't have a problem with confronting a racist). But you also know what I look like, and if you saw someone acting racist you could always tell me and I would go confront them. If I was vastly out-numbered I would grab some of the crew to take with me. In fact, I will speak for everyone in the RCB this one time only and say that any of those cats would be willing to confront someone acting racist.

You are asking us to ignore larger community persception simply by asking us to accept that monkley chanting is not a racist act.

I am for action by UEFA and FIFA because I see, just by your reaction alone, that this is a bigger issue than myself, with the help of a hundred RCB members, I could not confront this alone.

You are correct in your assumption that I have no compunction whatsoever about confronting a person committing a racist act, however subtle.

In fact, it is extremely difficult for me to sit by idly while you continue in your attempts to justify monkey chanting, with misdirection and clouding of the issue. I am concerned with your true intent.

Are you just being the devils' advocate or do you really not understand that no matter how often you say that you, and intelligent people, can see that monkey chanting is not racist and then claim you are not a racist or "that you do not condone racism" those statements and your actions are not compatible.
By advocating it in your speech and actions you become that in which you practice and/or condone.

To borrow a phrase, I am not sure of the exact wording but here is my summation.
"The true measure of a man is defined, not by his words, but by his actions."

[utah_heretic]

So...ska has repeatedly tried to include other examples where a situation might be considered racist and yet still be ambiguously so, if at all. In response to this, Duece, and Aero have repeatedly claimed that those examples are not the same thing at all and have nothing to do with monkey chanting.

Does the form of action you would prescribe for UEFA and FIFA only pertain to monkey chanting? Would the sort of policy you envision be limited to this cheer? If it is, it seems enormously unlikely to seriously impact racist behavior on the part of fans, which ought to be the motivation.

If not, then it would seem that some of Ska's examples might have bearing on the issue. After all, I thought one of the responses UEFA and FIFA would have in their arsenal (and the one which I was referring to earlier, and it seems like the one Ska was also concerned about) is to give referees the power to call the match on the basis of this behavior. Marc Zoro in this instance clearly hoped that the ref would do so..."I picked up the ball and went over to the fourth official to try and get him to stop the match..."

It sounded to me that Ska's concern in this issue was less specifically related to the Inter Milan v. Messina incident than the potential abuse/misuse of the referee's ability to call the game on the basis of potentially racist fan behavior. Since the game would have ended early, there would be no appeals process to re-instate the result.

Now personally, I've no fundamental problem with UEFA of FIFA reviewing the events of a game and causing a team to forfeit a match which has already been played on the basis of fan behavior, though I believe it is less meaningful than sanctioning the team for future games. It is my understanding that they have that right already. But I agree with Ska that allowing the referee to make that decision on the field during the game may have problematic and unpredictable consequences.

That being said...I'm not entirely convinced that the "kick their ass up around their teeth" approach would be particularly effective in the example of the Inter game either...on the one hand, any mass movement of people to confront that chant would probably be looked on as instigating a riot (which seems the likely outcome of that conversation being held by several hundred opposing fans)[Which doesn't make it something unworth doing in my opinion though]. The governing bodies of soccer definitely have a responsibility to act in situations like the Inter game...the question is how can they do so and make the a lasting impact which won't jeaprodise the game.

[Aero]

Originally Posted by utah_heretic

So...ska has repeatedly tried to include other examples where a situation might be considered racist and yet still be ambiguously so, if at all. In response to this, Duece, and Aero have repeatedly claimed that those examples are not the same thing at all and have nothing to do with monkey chanting.

My argument has been that monkey chanting is clearly and unambiguously racist despite attempts to justify it as something else. I have failed to address other issues more specifically because the line isn't quite as drawn in the sand on those issues. But on the issue of monkey chanting, there is no way that it can be interpreted as anything but racist. If there had been no defense that monkey chanting might not be racist, we probably could have ended this discussion a long time ago.

Does the form of action you would prescribe for UEFA and FIFA only pertain to monkey chanting?

No, but monkey chanting is one of the most obvious and easiest behavior to pick out as clearly racist. So I don't believe it should be limited to monkey chanting, but something should definitely be done about monkey chanting. Racism this blatant should be dealt with severely. No one can explain away monkey chanting to mean something else like they can the tune to Ellinger's Army. That is why there is a difference between the two in my opinion.

Would the sort of policy you envision be limited to this cheer? If it is, it seems enormously unlikely to seriously impact racist behavior on the part of fans, which ought to be the motivation.

No, it would apply to all behavior that is just as blatantly racist.

After all, I thought one of the responses UEFA and FIFA would have in their arsenal (and the one which I was referring to earlier, and it seems like the one Ska was also concerned about) is to give referees the power to call the match on the basis of this behavior. Marc Zoro in this instance clearly hoped that the ref would do so..."I picked up the ball and went over to the fourth official to try and get him to stop the match..."

It sounded to me that Ska's concern in this issue was less specifically related to the Inter Milan v. Messina incident than the potential abuse/misuse of the referee's ability to call the game on the basis of potentially racist fan behavior. Since the game would have ended early, there would be no appeals process to re-instate the result.

Well, since I don't believe that anyone has actually suggested that be the solution, I'm not sure why Ska would be addressing that concern with us. I don't think that the ref should have that authority.

My concern was that someone was trying to say that monkey noises might not actually be racist because they might be motivated by something other than racism. That is the concern I have been addressing with Ska this entire time, not the actions of the referee that I have never brought up once.

Now personally, I've no fundamental problem with UEFA of FIFA reviewing the events of a game and causing a team to forfeit a match which has already been played on the basis of fan behavior, though I believe it is less meaningful than sanctioning the team for future games. It is my understanding that they have that right already. But I agree with Ska that allowing the referee to make that decision on the field during the game may have problematic and unpredictable consequences.

We are in agreement here. Action should be taken after the game is over when it can be reviewed by more than just the referee.

That being said...I'm not entirely convinced that the "kick their ass up around their teeth" approach would be particularly effective in the example of the Inter game either...on the one hand, any mass movement of people to confront that chant would probably be looked on as instigating a riot (which seems the likely outcome of that conversation being held by several hundred opposing fans)[Which doesn't make it something unworth doing in my opinion though]. The governing bodies of soccer definitely have a responsibility to act in situations like the Inter game...the question is how can they do so and make the a lasting impact which won't jeaprodise the game.

Violence rarely ever solves anything no matter what anyone else might think. Sanctioning the team in some manner will have much better results in stopping this kind of behavior than trying to intimidate or physically stop someone from doing it. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be confronted and the person told that that kind of behavior is inappropriate when it is seen.

[bordelais7]

Aero, I know Ska well enough to know that he probably would be comfortable in completely agreeing with everything you just said. In fact, I will speak for everyone in the RCB this one time only and say that all of those cats completely agree with you.

[Deuce]

Just for the record Aero. I stated in one of my earliest posts and I still hold to the statement that the Referee should have the power to stop the match and award the match to the team that suffers the offense.

That is why Ska and Heretic keep making the statements about the Ref. even though I have hardly mentioned that specific action since early on.
and have attempted to concentrate on the justification of Monkey Chanting by Ska.

I have mentioned bold and decisive action by football/soccer governing bodies.
I mean just that bold and decisive action will get the attention of the offenders and will prompt the otherwise apathetic fans to take action against offenders.
I believe that the mere threat of action would prevent further occurrances of racist acts. If the threat did not deter the racist acts, then the referee would have the power to enforce the rule that i believe would get the attention of the fans and the racist acts would cease. I believe that it would only take one important match to be decided in that manner to make it clear that the fans would have to change their tactics.


I never claimed this act would end racism. I don't live in a dream world so I do not believe that racism will be irradicated from the planet in my lifetime, however i do believe that in this modern world no person should ever have to suffer the effects of racism.

[Section 37]

We all know when racism is being used to offend opposing players. I can't believe there would ever be a situation in the stands in which we would stand around wondering if what we were witnessing was racism. It's always obvious. Monkey chants is only one example. When racism appears, we know it. We recognize it. It's very convenient to argue against taking action because "if it's not monkey chants, how will we know it's racism" or "how do we know that the actual intent was racism". But those are not good arguments.

In my opinion, it's fine for officials to take strong action based on fan racism. This recognizes that there are more important things in our society than winning a game. By protecting the integrity of a game at all costs even to the point of turning our heads on racism,

we take up the wrong banner.

[montgjules]

Originally Posted by Section 37

We all know when racism is being used to offend opposing players. I can't believe there would ever be a situation in the stands in which we would stand around wondering if what we were witnessing was racism. It's always obvious. Monkey chants is only one example. When racism appears, we know it. We recognize it. It's very convenient to argue against taking action because "if it's not monkey chants, how will we know it's racism" or "how do we know that the actual intent was racism". But those are not good arguments.

In my opinion, it's fine for officials to take strong action based on fan racism. This recognizes that there are more important things in our society than winning a game. By protecting the integrity of a game at all costs even to the point of turning our heads on racism,

we take up the wrong banner.

100% agree.

p.s. I've seen Aero stand up for his viewpoints quietly but with a lot of determination a number of times, even when those viewpoints were very very unpopular.