Slate’s “Soccer” problem
First of all, let me say
that Steven Fatsis’ impassioned objection to the word “Yid” being used by Tottenham Hotspur football supporters to describe themselves contains a vital truth which I’d like to
reiterate. This word should never be
chanted by any side in the Premiership or any other league in any sport for any
reason-- full stop. That’s the future I want.
Is that clear? I hope so, because
I also want to say that while this is true – 100% true – there elements of
Fatsis’ Slate article that show a misunderstanding of Football, London, and the
deplorable history of the English class system which are worth pointing
out. Worth pointing out in so many ways that
it’s hard to know where to kick off.
The November 2012 article from the Daily Mail that Fatsis quotes seems like as good a place to start
as any. I would recommend not using this
paper as a source, even if the BBC
links to it! (Hey, I enjoy reading the Mail and I’m not saying it’s not OK to
write about sensationalist crap—but you gotta know that’s what you’re doing!) Because this newspaper dug up some former
Spurs players last year willing to go on record as embracing ethnic slurs doesn’t
mean that’s what the club, the
supporters (of which I am one) or English football as a whole want. Perhaps Fatsis could have quoted some more of
Daniel Wynne, a man who thinks it is OK to call himself a “Yid.” If he had, we would have learned that Wynne
is descended from Holocaust survivors. While
this doesn’t mean it’s OK for Spurs fans to chant “Yid” (sorry, but I’m going
to keep saying that because I know people have short attention spans) I think
that it does underscore that there are perhaps differences between what it
means to be Jewish in the UK compared to the US. Is it too much to admit the possibility that,
however alien it may seem, and that while it is as I agreed, completely wrong for non-Jewish supporters of Spurs
or any other team to use this slur, that an actual Jew in another country
thinks it’s OK?
Yup, I think it’s wrong that supporters chant the word, but I’m
here to let you know that the image of Spurs fans being some kind of right wing
bigots who started waving the Israeli flag around out of some kind of irony is
totally off base. When I first saw Spurs
in the 1980s I was taken there by a Canadian Jew. We both lived in Stamford Hill at the time,
which was, as it is now, a noticeably Jewish neighborhood. At the time I didn't care one way or another about Spurs' connection to the Jewish community, but my friend might well have. What was a guy like him supposed to do? Support clubs that really had anti-Semitic supporters, or go
with Spurs who embraced Jews? English
Jewish comedian and commentator David Baddiel’s assertion that Spurs fans are
only 3-4% Jewish (which may or may not be true) is moot if the reason some of that small percentage are there is because they feel more welcomed at Spurs. Could it be that the majority of Spurs fans historically felt as if they were rallying around their Jewish neighbours? If they were, are they required to do it in a way that we all find tasteful? Whatever the answer, Baddiel is fine at Chelsea—despite that paragon of
racial harmony (NOT!), John Terry,
leading the team onto the pitch every week.
I think that part of what’s going on in the minds of commentators in US
markets is a misunderstanding of the culture of some of these football clubs. In the Daily Mail interview that Fatsis quotes, Baddiel says “the debate seems to have got mired into
being just about Tottenham fans.” THANK
YOU! Are Slate readers just not ready
for this kind of complexity? I think
they are ready, but it would seem from Fatsis’ article that he doesn’t agree. There are football clubs in Europe that have openly
fascist supporters—Rome’s Lazio, for instance, who’s supporters attacked Spurs fans during last year’s Europa League competition. Are Spurs fans to blame for this? I certainly don’t think so. If you take the view that they are, the
implications are shocking.
On a similar note—while it’s wrong for supporters to chant “Yid,”—comparing
Spurs fans actions to the expropriation of American Indian symbolism by US
major league teams is a mistaken application of a justified sense of
outrage. The Cleveland Indians, Atlanta
Braves and Washington’s NFL team represent corporate appropriation of racial
identity. This is qualitatively
different because of Spurs actual association with the Jewish communities of
north London. The mascot of Tottenham
Hotspur is not a Jew—it’s a rooster standing on a football. Jews are included among the supporters, and
historically, the owners, who have included rags (trade) to riches businessmen
from working-class East London.
Talking of the owners, the accusation that it’s cynical for
Spurs to survey its supporters about this issue is based on an assumption
regarding what will be done with the results.
Spurs directors—unlike Fatsis—are not assuming anything about the supporters. It’s only when you know where people stand that
you can design a proper and effective intervention. I certainly want Spurs’ culture to change,
but I don’t think that can be done by demonizing people. I think it can be done by understanding where
people are coming from. I think that
that is how this behavior will end—through Tottenham’s owners working with the
supporters, not treating them like criminals.
It used to be part of my job to tell African American youth not to use
the N-word. Not an appropriate thing for
a white guy from England to be doing?
I couldn’t agree more except for
the fact that I don’t see telling people this kind of thing as enforcing some
kind of absolute law from outside.
Actually, I think it’s fine for Black youth to call themselves whatever
they like. But the reason that our youth
group would talk to people about not using the N-word was to encourage an
appreciation of context—you just can’t say it anytime and everywhere and expect
to be respected. I think that only
people with an appreciation of context will change the behavior of Spurs
fans. And part of the context is that it
certainly won’t be Chelsea supporters such as Baddiel!
That brings me to another point. This situation is unfolding in the UK, which unlike
the country where I’ve lived for the past 30 years has no 1st
amendment. In fact, there are laws there
prohibiting much broader forms of speech than the “fighting words” and “fire in
a crowded theater” here in the USA. I
suppose it’s a sign of how Americanized I’ve become but frankly I’m a big fan
of the 1st amendment.
Political freedom of expression is worth having, even if you have to put
up with opinions you don’t like. The
context that the British politicians are talking in is one of legal restriction
on speech. How much do we want
that? Is that what Fatsis wants? He, like me, wants to stop Spurs fans from
chanting “Yid,” and you can’t deny that arresting people who do it is one way
to go. Loath as I am to stick up for David Cameron,
if he condemns the chanting as racist he’s saying that these football fans
should be arrested en masse for a felony. If that
happened at White Hart Lane today, as Fatsis implies he would wish, based on his
comments about recording the crowd, that would mean arresting people—including Jews
like this Spurs fan and blogger—for what they are saying. I
don’t think that Americans, for the most part, want to live in that world, and
unlike (on the whole) the people of my homeland I think Americans have realized they don’t have to. I think that public shaming can accomplish quite a lot. For my part I’d like to start by shaming the
other clubs in this story instead of shaming Spurs supporters for essentially reacting
to being victimized.
Andy Dyson
No comments:
Post a Comment