West Ham fans caught chanting anti-semitic songs about Tottenham

rez9000

Upstanding Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
7,518
#41
I'd have to disagree with you on this one. I think it's a noble and utopian attitude, but it just isn't the case in the society we've actually built. While you're right to say that there's minimal biological difference between races in humanity, and what there is is nearly entirely superficial, that is not the only cause of difference.

Black people, for instance, have a history of being subjected to slavery, colonialism, segregation. And that has a spiral effect too. Even today when these things are over, black people around the world are on average far, far poorer than white people. That isn't because they're any less talented, hard working etc - as you said, we're essentially biologically identical. It's because colonialism stole resources from predominantly black areas of the world and gave them to white ones. Slavery and segregation meant black people in the west were poor, while white people benefitted from wealth inherited from their slave-owning forefathers. So I do think, for instance, there's an argument for reparations and for positive discrimination to try and end this historical imbalance, rather than a "colour-blind" policy that pretends the consequences of centuries of the most grotesque racism can be ended by white people simply choosing to ignore it from now on.

And on the point regarding "mansplaining", I do also think context is important. There's a long history of men controlling women that continues to this day. For instance, women's reproductive freedom is regulated near universally including in the UK, and in much of the world very heavily so with abortion outright banned and female contraception hard or impossible to access. As a result, a bloke "mansplaining" why women shouldn't have these rights contributes to those harmful and sexist restrictions, and therefore is far more damaging than whatever example in reverse (e.g. a woman making a flippant comment about how men should keep it in their pants if they don't like abortion or child maintenance). Men have had and still do have the power and inclination to control women in this way - no woman has ever been in a position to ban men from vasectomies "in case your wife wants babies one day".
But I'm not espousing a colour blind approach to tackling discrimination. I'm saying the philosophical foundation on which anti-discrimination is built is one that views all humans as equal.
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,835
#42
But I'm not espousing a colour blind approach to tackling discrimination. I'm saying the philosophical foundation on which anti-discrimination is built is one that views all humans as equal.
Which is a dodgy foundation because we are not equal. We should be, and we were, but in modern society we are not. I don't think you can have a coherent and successful movement against discrimination without acknoledging that and starting from that basis. If we were all equal there'd be no need for any of this because it would genuinely all just be "banter".
 

teedee

Active Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
134
#44
no, its probably not anto-semitism at all. its anti-tottenham. if we called ourselves the polish army they'd make polish jokes instead.
I don't care what you conveniently choose to call it. It's disgusting and disrespectful to people who have suffered so badly.

BTW I am not Jewish, or black or a Jehovah's Witness, etc, just a normal white English male who has never been subject to the sort of abuse, racial or not, liberally dished out by knuckle-dragging, ignorant people. It is time to stamp out this behaviour with exemplary punishments for offenders.
 
Last edited:

rez9000

Upstanding Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
7,518
#48
Which is a dodgy foundation because we are not equal. We should be, and we were, but in modern society we are not. I don't think you can have a coherent and successful movement against discrimination without acknoledging that and starting from that basis. If we were all equal there'd be no need for any of this because it would genuinely all just be "banter".
I'm sorry, buddy, but that's false. Our statuses are unequal, not what we are as a species. Again, you're focusing on the methods of action, not the philosophy.

You're going to hate me for saying this, so please allow me to apologise in advance.

What you've just done is precisely what I was talking about with regard the response that some have when the nuances are examined.

'Are you mansplaining things to me'; 'you're not black / Asian / <insert label of your choice here>, so you wouldn't understand'; 'but black people have suffered, so you can't view people as being the same' - if I had a pound for every time I'd heard that directed at me or someone in my earshot... well, I wouldn't be rich, but I reckon I could afford a couple of trips down the Lane. :)

Nuance. Nuance is all. Racism is illogical. That makes it irrational. So it needs a rational response. It needs a considered response. A considered response only comes through seeing what is not what we believe.

If your philosophy is based on the idea that there are groups that need to be supported then all you're doing is being patriarchal, which was the original driver of the colonialist attitude in the first place: that 'non-white' people can't fend for themselves and so they need to be 'protected', 'raised up', 'made productive'. And it works on the assumption that someone who isn't 'white' is somehow different. You can't fight the spectre of colonialism by being colonialist. All that does is perpetuate stereotypes - that 'non-whites' need the sage and wise counsel of 'whites' to learn how to behave themselves.

I have a dark-skinned (and I use that term deliberately) friend, Halah, who's a poet and American (not that's of any relevance, I just love having American friends - makes me feel cosmopolitan :)). I once asked her what made her angry. One of the first things she said was people thinking that because she was dark-skinned, she couldn't fend for herself and needed 'support' while patronising her with false sympathy for her 'struggle' as a 'person of colour'. She hates that her skin colour is viewed by some as a burden! She loves the colour of her skin (and I have to say, she does have beautiful skin - not surprising with the amount of body butter she puts on it!). Why should it ever be treated as an impediment?

I have another friend, Jyothis, whose father was from Sri Lanka (sadly passed on) and his mother from New York (a really lovely woman with dark skin). When we hang out, half the things we say to each other elicit the same response: 'that's so racist!'. Not because we're making racist comments, but because we once had a discussion about racism and how some are so quick to jump on the most innocuous comment as racist. For most dark-skinned people in my experience, race is not the first thing on their minds. It is recognised as a problem, but they are far more concerned with their families, their jobs, their homes, just like everyone else. They just want to be treated the same as everyone else.

That's not to say we shouldn't take racism (and other forms of discrimination) seriously. We absolutely should. And I'm not against providing greater opportunities to those in a disadvantaged state, but not to the point of pandering. And yes, restitution should be made for the crimes of the past. But again not as a sop to our guilt, but as an acknowledgement, a symbol, that we are growing as a species. That what went before is not who we are now.

Ultimately, being against discrimination has to be based on a philosophical foundation. If that foundation is that human groups are different to each other, it is a fundamentally flawed one, because the only way it will end is when everyone's skin colour is identical, we no longer have any gender, we are all 'able-bodied', believe in the same God, reproduce asexually, and have made marriage obsolete.

Recognising that the differences are miniscule is what will make them meaningless, not treating them as lines of division. That is what will eradicate discrimination. Treat the disease as well as the symptoms.
 
Last edited:

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,835
#53
I'm sorry, buddy, but that's false. Our statuses are unequal, not what we are as a species. Again, you're focusing on the methods of action, not the philosophy.

You're going to hate me for saying this, so please allow me to apologise in advance.

What you've just done is precisely what I was talking about with regard the response that some have when the nuances are examined.

'Are you mansplaining things to me'; 'you're not black / Asian / <insert label of your choice here>, so you wouldn't understand'; 'but black people have suffered, so you can't view people as being the same' - if I had a pound for every time I'd heard that directed at me or someone in my earshot... well, I wouldn't be rich, but I reckon I could afford a couple of trips down the Lane. :)

Nuance. Nuance is all. Racism is illogical. That makes it irrational. So it needs a rational response. It needs a considered response. A considered response only comes through seeing what is not what we believe.

If your philosophy is based on the idea that there are groups that need to be supported then all you're doing is being patriarchal, which was the original driver of the colonialist attitude in the first place: that non-white people can't fend for themselves and so they need to be 'protected', 'raised up', 'made productive'. And it works on the assumption that someone who isn't white is somehow different. You can't fight the spectre of colonialism by being colonialist. All that does is perpetuate stereotypes - that non-whites need our sage and wise counsel to learn how to behave themselves.

I have a dark-skinned (and I use that term deliberately) friend, Halah, who's a poet and American (not that's of any relevance, I just love having American friends - makes me feel cosmopolitan :)). I once asked her what made her angry. One of the first things she said was people thinking that because she was dark-skinned, she couldn't fend for herself and needed 'support' while patronising her with false sympathy for her 'struggle' as a 'person of colour'.

I have another friend, Jyothis, whose father was from Sri Lanka (sadly passed on) and his mother from New York (a really lovely woman with dark skin). When we hang out, half the things we say to each other elicit the same response: 'you're such a racist!'. Not because we're making racist comments, but because we once had a discussion about racism and how some are so quick to jump on the most innocuous comment as racist. For most dark-skinned people in my experience, race is not the first thing on their minds. It is recognised as a problem, but they are far more concerned with their families, their jobs, their homes, just like everyone else. They just want to be treated the same as everyone else.

That's not to say we shouldn't take racism (and other forms of discrimination) seriously. We absolutely should. And I'm not against providing greater opportunities to those in a disadvantaged state, but not to the point of pandering. And yes, restitution should be made for the crimes of the past. But again not as a sop to our guilt, but as an acknowledgement, a symbol, that we are growing as a species. That what went before is not who we are now.

Ultimately, being against discrimination has to be based on a philosophical foundation. If that foundation is that human groups are different to each other, it is a fundamentally flawed one, because the only way it will end is when everyone's skin colour is identical, we no longer have any gender, we are all 'able-bodied', believe in the same God, reproduce asexually, and have made marriage obsolete.

Recognising that the differences are miniscule is what will make them meaningless, not treating them as lines of division. That is what will eradicate discrimination. Treat the disease as well as the symptoms.
No need whatsoever to apologise for a difference in opinion :) And of course I don't hate you for saying that.

I actually think what you say at the end is really interesting. Because it underpins a lot of the argument, and I'm not sure I'd go along with the logic. I think we can be and will always be different, but that's not a barrier to being equal. We're a population of billions and growing, spread out in such a way that we are in geographically seperate groups and you'll only occasionally interact with those from others. I think even in an equal world you're always going to see different cultures and faiths, different genders, different worldviews. And that's not just okay, it's something entirely natural and to be celebrated. You seem to agree on that. So I don't see why basing the fight for equality on the fact that right now these groups are not treated equally makes it impossible.

The other thing I'd say is about how your friend is "far more concerned with their families, their jobs, their homes, just like everyone else." That's absolutely true, but I think actually supports the argument that we need to be conscious of inqualities, not against it. Racial minorities as a consequence of what's gone before are far less likely to have (good) jobs, to own their home, or even to have a family close enough to visit often or wealthy enough to travel to regularly. Economic inequalities aren't just fed by class inequalities, but by race, gender and disability too. We all care about these things, but some groups are a lot more likely to have them than others. So I don't see trying to reverse that as patrionising. What is important is the way it's done. This shouldn't be about privileged politicians "helping" the disadvantaged, it should be about genuine and lasting change that actually hands power to the people and enables them to tackle these issues themselves.

I'll probably leave this here in any case because I reckon we've got a bit off-topic and, in any case, way beyond the reading comprehension of an anti-Semitic West Ham skinhead. But feel free to message me any time if you wanna chat.
 

rez9000

Upstanding Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
7,518
#54
No need whatsoever to apologise for a difference in opinion :) And of course I don't hate you for saying that.

I actually think what you say at the end is really interesting. Because it underpins a lot of the argument, and I'm not sure I'd go along with the logic. I think we can be and will always be different, but that's not a barrier to being equal. We're a population of billions and growing, spread out in such a way that we are in geographically seperate groups and you'll only occasionally interact with those from others. I think even in an equal world you're always going to see different cultures and faiths, different genders, different worldviews. And that's not just okay, it's something entirely natural and to be celebrated. You seem to agree on that. So I don't see why basing the fight for equality on the fact that right now these groups are not treated equally makes it impossible.

The other thing I'd say is about how your friend is "far more concerned with their families, their jobs, their homes, just like everyone else." That's absolutely true, but I think actually supports the argument that we need to be conscious of inqualities, not against it. Racial minorities as a consequence of what's gone before are far less likely to have (good) jobs, to own their home, or even to have a family close enough to visit often or wealthy enough to travel to regularly. Economic inequalities aren't just fed by class inequalities, but by race, gender and disability too. We all care about these things, but some groups are a lot more likely to have them than others. So I don't see trying to reverse that as patrionising. What is important is the way it's done. This shouldn't be about privileged politicians "helping" the disadvantaged, it should be about genuine and lasting change that actually hands power to the people and enables them to tackle these issues themselves.

I'll probably leave this here in any case because I reckon we've got a bit off-topic and, in any case, way beyond the reading comprehension of an anti-Semitic West Ham skinhead. But feel free to message me any time if you wanna chat.
I'm absolutely loving this, old chap - deep conversations are a wondrous thing to me! :)

And, to be honest, we're not that far off from each other. And certainly in any fight against discrimination, we face the same way. Yes, for sure, there are specific groupings of people who are sorely disadvantaged and who do need assistance, and what they have in common is their skin colour. And likewise, I agree that the history of European colonialism is a bloody and utterly inhumane one.

I think I'm driven by the vision of what the ultimate goal is, while others focus on what is in front of them. Neither is better than the other, I hasten to add - just a difference in focus. (y)
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
24,265
#57
It’s just banter.

Spurs fans call themselves Yiddos so what’s the difference.

You can’t say anything nowadays without offending someone.
But what if someone is offended though? Why do we get to pick and choose what may offend someone else?
 

Lighty64

PC huh what a joke, avatar changed
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
8,055
#58
When it comes to sex, the genetic difference amounts to 7% with women having that amount more genetic material as a result of having two 'X' sex-chromosomes while men have one 'X' and one 'Y'.

.
and some unfortunates even have those chromosomes mixed up, something that my dad had but his 4 brothers never, and has a massive effect on the females of our family. my sister had 7 miscarriages before it was found, and as a carrier of the damaged chromosomes myself I have passed onto both my daughters, meaning the likelihood of them ever having children pretty slim
 

Lighty64

PC huh what a joke, avatar changed
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
8,055
#59
well just about anything you'd say would be discriminatory, just not necessarily based on race or ethnicity.

wouldnt you agree that pride in your race or ethnicity is just the flip side of denigrating another's? I mean we take pride in things we view as accomplishments that others are unable to achieve.
the thing is we are the ones that started the "yid/yiddo" chants because Chelsea, Wet Spam, and Arsenal used it against us because of our owners. someone posted it somewhere in my time on here and it's always stuck.

the trouble with racism is it's a world wide problem, there are racist in every culture and religion
 

Flashspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
5,864
#60
I wish it was as simple @rez9000 as the ‘undifference’ between us. I think from a genetic perspective it’s clear we are so alike. However it’s the cultural, language and religious barriers that also play such a big part - they speak different, eat different, live different etc and the tribal nature of human society makes us suspicious of these differences. I agree with your ‘in principle’ argument about genetic similarity but I think it’s much more complex then that.
 
Top