West Ham fans caught chanting anti-semitic songs about Tottenham

[slartibartfast]

He wasn't. It was irony in need of an emoticon of some description.

Tell me about it. I've been mugged off twice this weekend.
Like @Gassin's finest I'm not sure whats happening. Thought I'd be a lot older before I reached this point lol.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Irony died in 2016.

Some of us keep trying to administer electro-shock to the corpse, but it's starting to smell a bit now.

 

[fortworthspur]

And there you have the roots of liberal modern anti-semitism in a nutshell.

"It's not as bad as" ... [insert something else here].

Yes it fucking well is. It's identical. Just as bad.

Similarly rooted in genocide. Similarly rooted in deportations, expulsions and the destruction of communities. Similarly rooted in slave-labour.

A problem that Jews have with non-Jews who think they know the slightest thing about anti-semitism is that we are always being told how bad it isn't by people who have never experienced it.

I try to avoid lecturing my Black friends about racism. I try to avoid mansplaining feminism to my female friends. I strongly suggest that non-Jews stop telling us about anti-semitism. Ask some Jews. Be quiet and listen. Then talk.

no, its probably not anto-semitism at all. its anti-tottenham. if we called ourselves the polish army they'd make polish jokes instead.

 

[rez9000]

And there you have the roots of liberal modern anti-semitism in a nutshell.

"It's not as bad as" ... [insert something else here].

Yes it fucking well is. It's identical. Just as bad.

Similarly rooted in genocide. Similarly rooted in deportations, expulsions and the destruction of communities. Similarly rooted in slave-labour.

A problem that Jews have with non-Jews who think they know the slightest thing about anti-semitism is that we are always being told how bad it isn't by people who have never experienced it.

I try to avoid lecturing my Black friends about racism. I try to avoid mansplaining feminism to my female friends. I strongly suggest that non-Jews stop telling us about anti-semitism. Ask some Jews. Be quiet and listen. Then talk.

There is a problem with the 'mansplaining' thing, though. It's often used by people to deny those not part of the group agency when it comes to taking action.

I'm not accusing you of that, David, just to be clear.

But ultimately, it's not that difficult. If you don't want to be racist, sexist, discriminatory, it's very simple: don't think of other people as different. Because they're not.

I'm doing research for an article on racism and the alt-right. Part of my outline is highlighting how racism is illogical because the fundamental basis for it is a genetic difference. From what I've gleaned so far I've found that:

• The human genetic sequence is identical from human to human. That's the sequence of genes, not necessarily the genes themselves
• That what determines things like skin colour, hair colour, eye colour and the other many millions of variations that can occur are controlled by different 'flavours' of genes called alleles. So what causes one person to have dark skin and another light skin will be because of a difference in alleles.
• That the number of alleles that can cause difference in what's called the phenotype (i.e. the variety of human the genetic code produces) amounts to about 0.01% of the total genetic code.

We are so similar to each other, and the alleles that can cause visible differences are so few, that it's perfectly possible for a light-skinned person to be closer genetically to a dark skinned person than to another light-skinned person!

It's such bullshit, because it's so simple. We are just too similar to each other for the concept of different races to have any kind of logical basis.

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'.

This is my problem with the idea that being outside of a group removes the right to comment - we just aren't different enough for that to be valid.

Being ignorant is something else, of course. If one doesn't know then one should be careful of what one says and seek to increase knowledge. But denying someone the right to speak or act because they aren't part of the group, for me, is the same as attacking someone because they don't qualify to be part of a group based on an inherent characteristic. Again, not saying that's what you're doing, David, just that there are those who do.

Ultimately, I will treat others the way I'd expect to be treated. Why? Because they are the same as I am. It sounds simplistic, but once you pare away the extraneous bullshit, it really is that simple.

 

[rez9000]

no, its probably not anto-semitism at all. its anti-tottenham. if we called ourselves the polish army they'd make polish jokes instead.

That still makes it racist, dude. You're highlighting using different tools. But the intent is the same - to insult.

The whole point of an insult is that you target a weakness and laugh at it. If you think that being Jewish or being Polish or being anything is grounds to insult someone, for whatever reason, be that being a Spurs supporter or being a Man U supporter, that's racist. 'Race' is not a weakness (I don't believe that race even exists, that's how much of a weakness it isn't). But believing that it is, is racist.

 

[fortworthspur]

That still makes it racist, dude. You're highlighting using different tools. But the intent is the same - to insult.

The whole point of an insult is that you target a weakness and laugh at it. If you think that being Jewish or being Polish or being anything is grounds to insult someone, for whatever reason, be that being a Spurs supporter or being a Man U supporter, that's racist. 'Race' is not a weakness (I don't believe that race even exists, that's how much of a weakness it isn't). But believing that it is, is racist.

in indirect way, I suppose, because most spurs supporters arent jewish.

just curious, what is a valid reason to make fun of another club?

 

[rez9000]

in indirect way, I suppose, because most spurs supporters arent jewish.

just curious, what is a valid reason to make fun of another club?

It's not the reason that's at issue, it's the tool being used. Outside of anything discriminatory, you can pretty much say what you like.

 

[yankspurs]

Spammers are a charming bunch, aren’t they?

To those thinking social media has caused a rise in this shit, no. It’s caused many awful things, but racism and anti semitism had to have always been around the game bunches. It’s just taped and reported now so we are more aware of it.

To those who think we bring it on ourselves by calling ourselves yids or yiddos, or even equate the 2 things, please for the love of god would you sit down and stop with the false equivalencies. How in the entire fuck is identifying as yids or yiddos causing these assholes to sing anti semitic songs or making hissing noises like gas chambers? Like, seriously?

 

[fortworthspur]

It's not the reason that's at issue, it's the tool being used. Outside of anything discriminatory, you can pretty much say what you like.

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.

 

[rez9000]

well just about anything you'd say would be discriminatory, just not necessarily based on race or ethnicity.

No, that's a false assertion. There are nine clearly defined protected characteristics:

• age
• disability status
• marital status
• pregnancy status
• gender
• gender assignment
• race
• religious belief
• sexual orientation

Let me ask you this: what is the necessity for any of the above to be mentioned in a football chant?

Let me also ask you this:

Is an older person less of a human being than a young person? Is a woman less than a man? Someone with a disability less than one without? A Muslim less than a Christian? A gay less then a straightie, etc. etc.?

Anyone who says 'yes' to any of those questions, discriminates. And it's wrong. Because it's illogical. We are so 'undifferent' to each other that highlighting these miniscule differences is the height of idiocy and is pointless. Why would anyone want to? We're all born, we live, we die. Will it really matter on our death beds that we made sure a black person didn't make as much money as a white person? Or that a woman was prevented from voting? Or that a gay person was prevented from marrying the person she loves?

That's all discrimination. If you're against that, then you need to be against the espousing of it, even if it's in jest. Because that normalises and suggests acceptability. That enables the actions of those who will cause harm and perpetuates a cycle of abuse and discrimination.

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.

No. That's a classic trope in the racist playbook and it's complete balls.

My cultural heritage is Iranian. But I was born and raised in the UK. I take great pride in the achievements of the Iranian people. I likewise take pride in the achievements of the British people. But if I take pride in an Iranian achievement, that doesn't mean I think the British are stupid for not achieving it. That would be attacking myself. That's like saying that if you come first in a foot race, everyone else is a lesser human being.

I'm overweight. If I was in a foot race with pretty much anyone, I'd probably lose. But I have an aptitude for logic and mathematics. So, someone who would beat me in a race, I'd probably beat in some mental task. That doesn't make either of us better than the other. And at the same time, there will be those who I could beat in a race. And those who could beat me in a mental task. Again, that doesn't make me or them better. And most noodle-bakingly of all, there'll be those who can beat me in a foot race and in a mental task. And vice versa. Again, that doesn't make either of us inherently better.

There is no measure of 'betterness'. A human being has so many characteristics that even if it were possible to quantify them (which there isn't) there would simply be too many variables to be able to draw any kind of conclusion. Ultimately, no human is better than another. And certainly not because of their sex, race, religious belief or anything else.

If you take that as your starting point, then any kind of discrimination is illogical.

 

[ohtottenham!]

Being ignorant is something else, of course. If one doesn't know then one should be careful of what one says and seek to increase knowledge. But denying someone the right to speak or act because they aren't part of the group, for me, is the same as attacking someone because they don't qualify to be part of a group based on an inherent characteristic. Again, not saying that's what you're doing, David, just that there are those who do.

I like your approach, Rez, but being ignorant isn’t something else. It’s central to the whole issue. The whole concept of racism and discrimination has personal, historical meaning and significance to some of us, because it’s affected us directly. It’s affected others indirectly, and it’s barely touched the lives of others.

That much is clear from reading posts on any discussion thread with race/discrimination as a theme; and it’s clear from some posts on this thread.

I agree that you need some point of engagement to discuss with everyone along the spectrum, but “ignorance” or lack of personal meaningful exposure to the impacts of racism/discrimination is always going to be central in these discussions.

Personal contact and exchange is always the best for everything in a human sense, including changing minds. But, we're on an Internet forum where it's hard to gauge anything on a human level. I do like your approach and your tolerance of intolerance. I have that much more in person than I do in the written form. I don’t have that patience on these forums. That’s probably a combination of age, generational experience with racism, and time available on my part. Keep up the good work, Rez. I like reading your insights.

 

[Chinaspur]

No, that's a false assertion. There are nine clearly defined protected characteristics:

• age
• disability status
• marital status
• pregnancy status
• gender
• gender assignment
• race
• religious belief
• sexual orientation

Let me ask you this: what is the necessity for any of the above to be mentioned in a football chant?

If Mark Noble gets pregnant I’m going to mention that in a football chant. If that makes me a bad person then so be it.

 

[1882andallthat]

Unfortunately it's a sad fact of life that this will persist for generations to come. Whilst it is not exclusive to supporters of other clubs and it extends to people and groups who don't even claim to have allegencies to football clubs, this particular issues is consistently associated with a minority albeit a loudand unsavory minority of groups who associate themselves with West Ham and Chelsea. We all know that when individuals from these groups get together in pubs and on trains or when they are on their way to football matches their venom and prejudice towards certain races and religious groups is espoused and will continue to be espoused whatever statements West Ham and Chelsea repeatedly come out with or spell out action they will take. This happens even if their is no connection or association to Spurs.

Barring those who are too young to appreciate what is going on it should be obvious to any Spurs fans, that these same individuals when they are banded together claim their allegiance to West Ham or Chelsea are so obsessed and united in their hatred of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club and any group associated with them that I believe in their twisted and misguided way they treat Tottenham Hotspur as if they a particular ethnic or religious group to be targeted with prejudice.

 

[rez9000]

I like your approach, Rez, but being ignorant isn’t something else. It’s central to the whole issue. The whole concept of racism and discrimination has personal, historical meaning and significance to some of us, because it’s affected us directly. It’s affected others indirectly, and it’s barely touched the lives of others.

That much is clear from reading posts on any discussion thread with race/discrimination as a theme; and it’s clear from some posts on this thread.

I agree that you need some point of engagement to discuss with everyone along the spectrum, but “ignorance” or lack of personal meaningful exposure to the impacts of racism/discrimination is always going to be central in these discussions.

Personal contact and exchange is always the best for everything in a human sense, including changing minds. But, we're on an Internet forum where it's hard to gauge anything on a human level. I do like your approach and your tolerance of intolerance. I have that much more in person than I do in the written form. I don’t have that patience on these forums. That’s probably a combination of age, generational experience with racism, and time available on my part. Keep up the good work, Rez. I like reading your insights.

FIrstly, thank you for the compliment - that's very kind of you to say.

More importantly, I should apologise - I didn't make my point regarding ignorance properly.

When I spoke about ignorance, in this specific context, I was talking about people who don't have direct experience of the struggles of people of differing heritage, sex, religion, etc and how they should be considered in their approach. But at the same time, they shouldn't be excluded or marginalised because they aren't a 'member' of the particular group.

I remember some years back I was discussing feminism with a number of female friends. One of them had very recently had a sexual awakening, was starting to explore feminism, but hadn't really studied anything about it at that point. I said something about women's suffrage which made her flare up and, for some reason, accuse me of being patriarchal and chauvinistic. When I tried to explain the point, she then accused me of 'mansplaining'. Being far brasher and far, far, far less patient than I try to be these days, I basically started bombarding her with points from feminist thought, and asking her if she'd heard of feminist writers I knew she wouldn't have. Being inexperienced, she had no reply and it left her speechless.

The supreme irony is that we were both engaging in unwelcome behaviour. She felt that I was unqualified to comment because I was a man. I felt she was unqualified to comment because she lacked knowledge. I have to say that, to my shame, I was an utter shit to her on that occasion. Even though we made it up and became, and remain, very close friends, I still feel guilty for doing it. Although I enjoy the fact that now, 15 years on, she far surpasses me in her knowledge of feminism - like light years ahead!

That's why I don't like to see people with good intentions being marginalised or even excluded on the basis of not being a 'member' of the group. Direct experience is invaluable, but it isn't the only thing. People of good conscience who take time to study and learn can be just as valuable. I've witnessed people being ridiculed for daring to comment when not being of the heritage under discussion, even being told they have no right to comment because of it and that's not right.

Anyway, I'll stop rambling, but not before saying that I agree with your point about ignorance. I just wanted to clarify what I was talking about above.

 

[doctor stefan Freud]

Growing up in the south east of England I was surrounded by family and friends who supported Brighton, Palace or Tottenham. Sometimes I’d watch Brighton with mates and I remember away fans used to chant lots of homophobic songs because of Brighton having a thriving gay scene.

Anyway, the last time I caught up with an old friend who carried on watching Brighton long after I moved away he told me about a game where the usual crap homophobic chants started up and the Brighton fans responded with: “You’re too ugly to be gay, You’rreee too ugly to be gay!” This was a unified response that carried on for some time and eventually drowned out the away fans. Then you could just about hear, as the Brighton chant quitened down, appreciative laughter from the away section. It was one of the rare moments I’ve heard of where humour was used to successfully challenge vitriolic bigotry at a game.

I’m not even convinced by the sentiment of the chant- it also relies on a stereotype- but in the sometimes ruthless culture of terrace chanting it was original and witty, absurd and challenging

 

[TheSpillage]

Growing up in the south east of England I was surrounded by family and friends who supported Brighton, Palace or Tottenham. Sometimes I’d watch Brighton with mates and I remember away fans used to chant lots of homophobic songs because of Brighton having a thriving gay scene.

Anyway, the last time I caught up with an old friend who carried on watching Brighton long after I moved away he told me about a game where the usual crap homophobic chants started up and the Brighton fans responded with: “You’re too ugly to be gay, You’rreee too ugly to be gay!” This was a unified response that carried on for some time and eventually drowned out the away fans. Then you could just about hear, as the Brighton chant quitened down, appreciative laughter from the away section. It was one of the rare moments I’ve heard of where humour was used to successfully challenge vitriolic bigotry at a game.

I’m not even convinced by the sentiment of the chant- it also relies on a stereotype- but in the sometimes ruthless culture of terrace chanting it was original and witty, absurd and challenging

I really love that. I’m a bit too hungover to compose a properly coherent reply but I do like the idea of just throwing an obscene attempt at piss taking right back. Of owning a thing. It’s reminiscent of the Y word. As misguided as many think it is, the sentiment feels similar. Yeah we’re gay: fuck you (even though we’re mostly not gay/Jewish).

 

[Coyboy]

kinda agree that its not the same as racist abuse of black players.

It's self-evidently not the same but it's just as bad.

 

[Coyboy]

He wasn't. It was irony in need of an emoticon of some description.

No I don't think so, the words and context should have been enough.

 

[cider spurs]

in indirect way, I suppose, because most spurs supporters arent jewish.

just curious, what is a valid reason to make fun of another club?

Jurgen Klopp

 

[Saoirse]

But ultimately, it's not that difficult. If you don't want to be racist, sexist, discriminatory, it's very simple: don't think of other people as different. Because they're not.

I'm doing research for an article on racism and the alt-right. Part of my outline is highlighting how racism is illogical because the fundamental basis for it is a genetic difference. From what I've gleaned so far I've found that:

• The human genetic sequence is identical from human to human. That's the sequence of genes, not necessarily the genes themselves
• That what determines things like skin colour, hair colour, eye colour and the other many millions of variations that can occur are controlled by different 'flavours' of genes called alleles. So what causes one person to have dark skin and another light skin will be because of a difference in alleles.
• That the number of alleles that can cause difference in what's called the phenotype (i.e. the variety of human the genetic code produces) amounts to about 0.01% of the total genetic code.

We are so similar to each other, and the alleles that can cause visible differences are so few, that it's perfectly possible for a light-skinned person to be closer genetically to a dark skinned person than to another light-skinned person!

It's such bullshit, because it's so simple. We are just too similar to each other for the concept of different races to have any kind of logical basis.

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'.

This is my problem with the idea that being outside of a group removes the right to comment - we just aren't different enough for that to be valid.

Being ignorant is something else, of course. If one doesn't know then one should be careful of what one says and seek to increase knowledge. But denying someone the right to speak or act because they aren't part of the group, for me, is the same as attacking someone because they don't qualify to be part of a group based on an inherent characteristic. Again, not saying that's what you're doing, David, just that there are those who do.

Ultimately, I will treat others the way I'd expect to be treated. Why? Because they are the same as I am. It sounds simplistic, but once you pare away the extraneous bullshit, it really is that simple.

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".