by Bashmachkin Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 am
I don't know, it's a tricky issue, but some thoughts:
Racist or religious insults are often seen as particularly serious and offensive, and I can understand that to an extent, in so far as racial and religious persecution has been constant and severe through history, race and religion are fundamental aspects of many people's self-identities or communal-identities, and so there's lots of emotion attached to the issues.
But a lot of distasteful stuff is shouted at football matches. For a start, I think tone and context are important, and that whilst it can get out of hand, football banter is mostly somewhat playful, or silly, or to wind people up, and it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Like Sheffield says, it's difficult to define what is and isn't racist, what does cross the line.
Then, ultimately, is it really valid to come down strongly on racism and set up initiatives against that, but to ignore various other discriminatory chants? For instance, reading up on the Mido case, apparently we Newcastle fans also called him a 'paedo' during the same game - he was targeted because, besides from being one of Boro's more well known, and probably less well-liked players, his name conveniently rhymed with the term, but apparently Newcastle fans have been calling Boro players 'paedos' for twenty years after it was claimed in 1987 that a large number of children in the Middlesbrough area had been sexually molested. In the same sort of vein, Boro fans apparently call Newcastle players rapists. In both cases, whole areas are being stereotyped, players are being randomly accused and insulted. I know that opposing fans have often chanted things regarding Bobby Robson's age and ill-health when playing us, mocking his age by suggesting he is perpetually about to piss himself, poking fun at his cancer. There seems an element of ageism here ('ageism' seems one of the most banal words there is to me, but regardless). I'm sure ginger-haired players get frequently abused. But such incidents are rarely made much of.
Then is it right or at all practical that, for instance, Mido could escape a booking or have a booking rescinded after making a gesture on the grounds that he was racially provoked, but a ginger-haired player, for instance, wouldn't get his booking rescinded? Or take David Beckham, for instance, who was always met with chants regarding his wife - such chants directed at me would at least make me more angry than chants regarding my race or my religion.
I think generally it's problematic to suggest that an insult that can be seen as stereotyping a group actually does stereotype that group; that a comment that can be seen as racist necessarily implies racism; that it's valid for any group or person other than the individual being directly insulted to feel or argue that they have been insulted. Racism can't necessarily be reduced to words and insults.If Mido is taunted with 'he's got a bomb', can the insult really be extended to Muslims as a whole - is it really intended to insult Muslims, or is it not just silly, and perhaps over the top banter; and is it really valid for Muslims to take offence at chants directed for whatever reason at an individual? Of course, I'm just taking Muslims as an example here.
I would support in principal any genuine attempts to eradicate racism from football, and I think football crowds can more generally be too aggressive too often, too often cross the line between good natured banter and offensiveness and aggression. But I think sometimes banter can be taken too seriously; I don't know how well issues of race and religion can be seperated from other issues; and there seems a big practical problem as far as doing anything about this goes, both in terms of defining what is and isn't acceptable, and in terms of enforcing any rules on crowds or on clubs or on players.
.
Home