- May 15, 2004
- 12,518
- 2,739
I'd say the term Jew army would be seen as less offensive in the same way Black Army would be seen as less offensive than "nigga army" and Indian or Pakistani army would be seen as less offensive than "paki army"Surely there is a radical difference between 'Yid' and 'Jew' - I would argue that a chant of Jew Army (or Jewish Army) could be taken as offensive or racial, but 'Yid Army' is as much a definition of language as of racial identity. I strongly believe there is a serious risk of over reacting here, and by extension, a possibility that Tafs, Micks, Jocks, Geordies etc become unacceptable. What then for the Scum, the Bindippers and the Chavs?
The whole point surely is that Yid was initially used as an offensive dehumanising term for Jewish/Yiddish people in the same way Nigger was designed to be offensive to black people and the question is more is it ok for people not of that ethic group to use the term for themselves now because they feel it is being used in a positive/supportive/empowering fashion.
As for over reaction, well yes there is a massive risk of that and excessive political correctness and I said before that I don't know many (any) Jewish people to know just how offensive the term Yid or Yiddo are considered nor do I know the history of the word well enough to really make an informed decision on whether or not I personally feel the use of it by Spurs fans is acceptable.(and I'd be lying through my teeth if I said I hadn't chanted Yid army Yid's and Yiddos a thousand times at games over the years)
What I was saying was the argument that black people call themselves nigga to empower the word from nigger proves it is ok for Spurs fans to use a term against another creed of people in an empowering way is not a valid argument.