Smear campaign against Baddiel

This whole debate draws so many parallels with the whole "Gay" thing though - there was a time very recently that you couldn't call someone gay as it was considered a slur, the queens, god love em, all said, "Call me whatever the hell you like, sweetheart, i'll be gay, pink, a poof, an iron - it's no skin off my knob" etc. (i've had the discussion, been there with homosexuals under fire for the way they act and the bumsex business and i've laughed myself inside out with some of the responses i've heard), flounced away and, i dunno, probably danced a lot. They just got on with their lives and absorbed the word - a word which previously meant happy, then taken on by bigots to shout abuse, then reclaimed to diffuse the entire shenanigans. Sure, some people still use it in a derogatory fashion, aim it to cause offence, but 99% of the time the person who it was aimed at takes no offence thus rendering it pointless and the bigot defeated.

It's just another point i would love to see put to Baddiel in a debate, yet still he hides behind that smug smile & amateur beard, refusing to actually be drawn into a sensible debate about any of it. Grow some balls, Baddiel and, if you really do want to be taken seriously as a crusader for racial equality, stop ignoring the club YOU choose to support and widely recognised outside of your warped mind as one of the worst perpetrators of bigotry.

Instead of a smear campaign, i'd much rather see a campaign to get him into a live Q&A on national telly or radio - especially if it's those same media outlets that have, so far, given him free reign to spout declarations of racism completely unopposed.

riggi said:

Yes I agree but what about those who aren't supporters. Some people wont care why we're using it, they just see big bald skinhead football fans, shouting it out with their arm in the air. I do think something needs to be done with in the club though. What was the result of the season ticket survey?

Click to expand...

I'm a season ticket holder, I've yet to receive any invitation to participate in the announced survey. Was it email, postal, what?

MattyP said:

I'm a season ticket holder, I've yet to receive any invitation to participate in the announced survey. Was it email, postal, what?

Click to expand...

Really? I cant remember now ill have to search it. I remember thinking at the time that it was a bit unfair to just have survey for st holders.

MattyP said:

I'm a season ticket holder, I've yet to receive any invitation to participate in the announced survey. Was it email, postal, what?

Click to expand...

Likewise.

Has it even been held yet?

I've twatted Baddiel (if only, joke) inviting him to arrange & participate in a reasoned debate about the use of the y word throughout football instead of hiding behind his article. I'm not expecting a response tbh.

Interestingly, Peter Tatchell has tweeted in support of Tottenham. Courtesy of The Fighting Cock.

How can you have a smear campaign against someone that nobody cares about? Baddiel is an idiot, he's happy to engage anyone who'll listen to him but he won't engage Spurs fans on the subject. For me I don't think he pays enough or any attention to the Jewish Spurs fans that have suffered abuse over the years. If we stop singing and then next year the away fans come and start throwing slurs about, they'll have lost one of the powers* that we have against them.

Baddiel needs to eradicate the actual hardcore disgusting racism (good luck with that) before he tells us to stop singing "Yid Army".




*The other power is the police, bless them for trying

JerryGarcia said:

How can you have a smear campaign against someone that nobody cares about? Baddiel is an idiot, he's happy to engage anyone who'll listen to him but he won't engage Spurs fans on the subject. For me I don't think he pays enough or any attention to the Jewish Spurs fans that have suffered abuse over the years. If we stop singing and then next year the away fans come and start throwing slurs about, they'll have lost one of the powers* that we have against them.

Baddiel needs to eradicate the actual hardcore disgusting racism (good luck with that) before he tells us to stop singing "Yid Army".




*The other power is the police, bless them for trying

Click to expand...

Looks like Jerry's just found a pack of Top Trumps

TaoistMonkey said:

I have no problems with him wanting to kick out aggressive, negative chants but when the word Yid get lumped in its not ok.

Click to expand...

It's ledley. Everything is ok

best centre back i have ever seen. Injuries murdered his career. Fuck nesta, fuck cannavaro. ledley, when fit, was imperious.

That wasn't really a reply. Just saw csn at the royal albert hall, so in a good mood.

Saw ledley kings name, remembered that tackle against robben, smiled, life was slightly improved as a result.


Goodnight sc

riggi said:

I think some of us just don't get that people are offended by it. Why etc doesn't matter, people are offended, it starts to go into the category of 'your opinion is wrong'. That said, because it offends a number, doesn't mean it should be banned. If this was such an issue then the club would of been receiving complaints for years and we would of been seeing this issue earlier. Maybe we should look into changing the chant, keep the Jewish identity but use a different word. Ala Ajax...

Click to expand...

I think it's more a case that people couldn't care less about offending others.

I've read posts by Jewish members on this board saying they are uncomfortable with the phrase and also spoken to Jewish fans who hate our use of the word.

But people simply want to sing what they want even if it offends the very people they pretend they are standing up for.

I think it really comes down to whether or not the word itself is fundamentally offensive or if it needs offensive context to become offensive

A good example is the John Terry and Anton Ferdinand situation where the use of the word black on its own is not offensive but add the word bastard to it and the context use of the word makes it offensive

Where as it is considered offensive to use the N word regardless of context (unless for some reason the er is replaced with an a and used by black people to reclaim the word apparently - but that's an entirely different debate)

So really I think the history of the word itself is fundamental to the debate - if it is simply a short version of the Term Yiddish and not offensive in itself then I see no problem with our fans using it in solidarity and support. If the term only became offensive when attached to an offensive term such as dirty or bastard etc then its all about the context and intent of the word which would in my opinion make our use of the term in the context we use it inoffensive

So it really comes down to who is right - if it is the same as the N word and has a history of dehumanising a creed of people and justifying horrific acts against them then it unacceptable for us to use it regardless of our intent as it is simply not our word to reclaim.

But if it is only offensive with applied offensive context in the same way the word black becomes offensive when used in such a way then people have no business telling us we shouldn't use it the way we do.

No one would utter a word if we were singing Black army - but there would be justified out rage if we were screaming 'Nigger army' so to me the debate is as simple as defining whether the term Yid is offensive in itself or requires context to become so.

dontcallme said:

I think it's more a case that people couldn't care less about offending others.

I've read posts by Jewish members on this board saying they are uncomfortable with the phrase and also spoken to Jewish fans who hate our use of the word.

But people simply want to sing what they want even if it offends the very people they pretend they are standing up for.

Click to expand...

The great majority of Jewish Spurs fans that I know, have come across or who I have seen commenting on the matter on message boards are fiercely proud of the fact that Spurs fans describe themselves as "yids". Many others don't join in with the chants but are fine with Spurs fans using the word to describe themselves.

Do we care that things that we do or say might offend others? I'm sure that most of us do. Silly to claim otherwise. Getting on your high moral horse about this issue isn't helpful to the debate. The question to be answered is whether or not others taking offence at something that we do or say means that we should necessarily stop doing or saying the supposedly offensive thing.

My answer is no. Unfortunately, there are myriad innocent things that we all do and say in our lives that some others will find offensive. Using the word "yid" to mean "Spurs fan" is just one of those. If someone chooses to remain offended after it has been explained to them what the word means in the context of Spurs, then that is unfortunate but not our responsibility.

And please stop with this "people they are standing up for" nonsense. We might be rightly proud of why we first adopted the word forty odd years ago but the vast majority of Spurs fans only sing the word because, in the context of Spurs, it now means "Spurs fan" or "Spurs player". No other reason.

Shea said:

I think it really comes down to whether or not the word itself is fundamentally offensive or if it needs offensive context to become offensive

A good example is the John Terry and Anton Ferdinand situation where the use of the word black on its own is not offensive but add the word bastard to it and the context use of the word makes it offensive

Where as it is considered offensive to use the N word regardless of context (unless for some reason the er is replaced with an a and used by black people to reclaim the word apparently - but that's an entirely different debate)

So really I think the history of the word itself is fundamental to the debate - if it is simply a short version of the Term Yiddish and not offensive in itself then I see no problem with our fans using it in solidarity and support. If the term only became offensive when attached to an offensive term such as dirty or bastard etc then its all about the context and intent of the word which would in my opinion make our use of the term in the context we use it inoffensive

So it really comes down to who is right - if it is the same as the N word and has a history of dehumanising a creed of people and justifying horrific acts against them then it unacceptable for us to use it regardless of our intent as it is simply not our word to reclaim.

But if it is only offensive with applied offensive context in the same way the word black becomes offensive when used in such a way then people have no business telling us we shouldn't use it the way we do.

No one would utter a word if we were singing Black army - but there would be justified out rage if we were screaming 'Nigger army' so to me the debate is as simple as defining whether the term Yid is offensive in itself or requires context to become so.

Click to expand...

It is all about context. Surely anyone can see that if they understand the evolution of language and the etymology of words. The word Yid is not historically fundamentally racist/offensive, and neither is the context it is used in here. It can be of course, but that is the same with any other word used. Black is an acceptable term, as is white as well as English and French. But put 'fucking' in front of these completely usable words and they become an offensive term in the person using it. Yid was adopted as an offensive term for a period of time in it's long history, that doesn't make it offensive. It also surprises me that many don't realise that Yid is a neutral to complimentary term in Yiddish used by many Jews worldwide, what is more annoying is that this is said to not be offensive because it is in the correct use and context-which then undermines any argument to say that Tottenham fancs can't use Yid regardless of its positive context.

And perhaps even more logically important, if looking at the simplistic approach to lexis etymology; before this all hit the headlines It is my belief that probably more English people than not would have associated Yid with Tottenham and been unknowledgable about it's Jewish and latterly offensive origins. This is in by no means a negative thing, in fact it is the complete opposite- an insulting word had started to become an acceptable one with positive unifying meanings. Perhaps i'm ignorant but when it is viewed in such a way with its true modern context (in regards to Spurs) behind it I struggle to see how offence can be taken by its use. A word is not offensive-how its used is.

Shea said:

I think it really comes down to whether or not the word itself is fundamentally offensive or if it needs offensive context to become offensive

A good example is the John Terry and Anton Ferdinand situation where the use of the word black on its own is not offensive but add the word bastard to it and the context use of the word makes it offensive

Where as it is considered offensive to use the N word regardless of context (unless for some reason the er is replaced with an a and used by black people to reclaim the word apparently - but that's an entirely different debate)

So really I think the history of the word itself is fundamental to the debate - if it is simply a short version of the Term Yiddish and not offensive in itself then I see no problem with our fans using it in solidarity and support. If the term only became offensive when attached to an offensive term such as dirty or bastard etc then its all about the context and intent of the word which would in my opinion make our use of the term in the context we use it inoffensive

So it really comes down to who is right - if it is the same as the N word and has a history of dehumanising a creed of people and justifying horrific acts against them then it unacceptable for us to use it regardless of our intent as it is simply not our word to reclaim.

But if it is only offensive with applied offensive context in the same way the word black becomes offensive when used in such a way then people have no business telling us we shouldn't use it the way we do.

No one would utter a word if we were singing Black army - but there would be justified out rage if we were screaming 'Nigger army' so to me the debate is as simple as defining whether the term Yid is offensive in itself or requires context to become so.

Click to expand...

Language evolves.

The word "yid" was originally only used in yiddish.

It subsequently became a more widely used term for Jewish people.

Later still, it became a pejorative.

Last of all, it came to mean "Spurs fan".

No one has the right to say that the pejorative application of the word is the only valid application. That would be entirely illogical. There is no chronological hierarchy of meaning.*

And that's why context is utterly crucial to the debate.

* and if there was, the pejorative meaning of the word would have to defer to earlier meanings.

dontcallme said:

I think it's more a case that people couldn't care less about offending others.

I've read posts by Jewish members on this board saying they are uncomfortable with the phrase and also spoken to Jewish fans who hate our use of the word.

But people simply want to sing what they want even if it offends the very people they pretend they are standing up for.

Click to expand...

With ridiculous statements like that it makes this issues impossible to debate and valid points are dismissed with no regards on this premise. There have been a large number of coherent and well thought out posts that are attempting to validate Tottenhams use of 'Yid' (many that I agree with), which obviously does not have this sentiment behind them. Do not play the moral high ground card as it does nothing but give a very linear dimension to your argument and doesn't address any of the many logical responses.

jambreck said:

Language evolves.

The word "yid" was originally only used in yiddish.

It subsequently became a more widely used term for Jewish people.

Later still, it became a pejorative.

Last of all, it came to mean "Spurs fan".

No one has the right to say that the pejorative application of the word is the only valid application. That would be entirely illogical. There is no chronological hierarchy of meaning.*

And that's why context is utterly crucial to the debate.

* and if there was, the pejorative meaning of the word would have to defer to earlier meanings.

Click to expand...

Well

Say for example it had been a black community in Tottenham instead of a Jewish community at the time and rival fans were constantly shouting racist black abuse and throwing the N word around and as a result our fans rallied behind the black community in our area and the black supporters who followed us by reclaiming the N word and labelling ourselves "nIggers" and singing "nigger army" instead of Yids and Yid army

Would it be considered ok now for us to be calling ourselves that and chanting that because of the context? Would we be so arrogant as to suggest our history of using the word as a football club overrides the history of a word used for centuries to dehumanise a whole race of people and justify mass genocide and slavery? would it be ok for us to sing Nigger Army because we used it in a supportive context and words evolve?

I honestly don't think it would be so I believe the debate is wider and deeper than context alone - in my opinion the word itself and its meaning is the crucial issue in the debate

As I said before - if as with the word black it would need to be accompanied with a negative term to become offensive then I don't see a problem with our use with the context in which we use it but if like the N word it has a deep history of being an offensive word on to itself then we shouldn't be using it.

For the record it had always been my understanding that the word Yid was indeed more like the word black than the N word in as far as it only became offensive because people intending to cause offence attached abusive meaning to it - just like John Terry calling Ferdinand a black bastard or whatever he did made a non offensive word offensive

But I am not an expert on the word Yid or its history to make a judgement on whether or not it is offensive fundamentally - I do however feel it is this that is crucial to the debate more so than simply the context used

Shea said:

Well

Say for example it had been a black community in Tottenham instead of a Jewish community at the time and rival fans were constantly shouting racist black abuse and throwing the N word around and as a result our fans rallied behind the black community in our area and the black supporters who followed us by reclaiming the N word and labelling ourselves "nIggers" and singing "nigger army" instead of Yids and Yid army

Would it be considered ok now for us to be calling ourselves that and chanting that because of the context? Would we be so arrogant as to suggest our history of using the word as a football club overrides the history of a word used for centuries to dehumanise a whole race of people and justify mass genocide and slavery? would it be ok for us to sing Nigger Army because we used it in a supportive context and words evolve?

I honestly don't think it would be so I believe the debate is wider and deeper than context alone - in my opinion the word itself and its meaning is the crucial issue in the debate

As I said before - if as with the word black it would need to be accompanied with a negative term to become offensive then I don't see a problem with our use with the context in which we use it but if like the N word it has a deep history of being an offensive word on to itself then we shouldn't be using it.

For the record it had always been my understanding that the word Yid was indeed more like the word black than the N word in as far as it only became offensive because people intending to cause offence attached abusive meaning to it - just like John Terry calling Ferdinand a black bastard or whatever he did made a non offensive word offensive

But I am not an expert on the word Yid or its history to make a judgement on whether or not it is offensive fundamentally - I do however feel it is this that is crucial to the debate more so than simply the context used

Click to expand...

It's also hard to have a debate based on a hypothetical, to us using 'Nigger' in this context even if deemed a positive context seems abhorrent however it can't be used as a solid debate because we just dont know for 100%. I also, like you, think there is a difference between Nigger and Yid based on its history before becoming an offensive word.

In regards to meaning in a modern context, Google Yid- what comes out top? Yep, information about Tottenham Hotspur. So it is now not just about context which I still feel is the most important thing in regards to this debate, but it has actually adopted new meaning (like many words do).

0-Tibsy-0 said:

It's also hard to have a debate based on a hypothetical, to us using 'Nigger' in this context even if deemed a positive context seems abhorrent however it can't be used as a solid debate because we just dont know for 100%. I also, like you, think there is a difference between Nigger and Yid based on its history before becoming an offensive word.

In regards to meaning in a modern context, Google Yid- what comes out top? Yep, information about Tottenham Hotspur. So it is now not just about context which I still feel is the most important thing in regards to this debate, but it has actually adopted new meaning (like many words do).

Click to expand...

I think its pretty easy to know that it wouldn't be acceptable for us to be chanting the N word regardless of context

The fact that it has a history of degrading and dehumanising people for centuries and has connection to slavery long before our club was even in existence would surely over ride any notion of us being able to use it in a positive and acceptable context

If as Baddiel and the likes of Lineker and Ledley seem to be suggesting in the respective statements the word Yid is the same then we no way should be using it - but as I have said it had always been my understanding that Yid was not fundamentally offensive but more like black than the N word - but I really don't know enough about it myself nor am I Jewish to be able to have a first hand opinion on whether I find it offensive personally

I think people are being a little harsh on Baddiel though - he is a Jewish man and he personally feels offended by the word, I am not sure as a non Jew I have any right to tell him he cannot take offence to it, for all I know he was subjected to racist abuse for years and years largely by that word and it has a deep association with anti Semitic thought to him . It reminds me of old white people using the word coloured for black people and telling black people they shouldn't be offended by it when they are (famous poem "you've got the fucking nerve to call me coloured" springs to mind)

What I think the debate needs really (as I am not sure Google search can be used as any kind of empirical evidence) is more Jewish input so we can get a balance debate about their standpoint (rather than Baddiel who while Jewish is also a rival fan and perhaps has an agenda or at least may not represent the Jewish communities opinion accurately) as well as a more definitive answer to whether or not the word in itself is offensive or if indeed it only is offensive by use of offensive context

To me its as simple as defining whether the word Yid is like the N word in its history or if as I have always believe it is more like Black and requires context to become offensive

Shea said:

I think its pretty easy to know that it wouldn't be acceptable for us to be chanting the N word regardless of context

The fact that it has a history of degrading and dehumanising people for centuries and has connection to slavery long before our club was even in existence would surely over ride any notion of us being able to use it in a positive and acceptable context

If as Baddiel and the likes of Lineker and Ledley seem to be suggesting in the respective statements the word Yid is the same then we no way should be using it - but as I have said it had always been my understanding that Yid was not fundamentally offensive but more like black than the N word - but I really don't know enough about it myself nor am I Jewish to be able to have a first hand opinion on whether I find it offensive personally

I think people are being a little harsh on Baddiel though - he is a Jewish man and he personally feels offended by the word, I am not sure as a non Jew I have any right to tell him he cannot take offence to it, for all I know he was subjected to racist abuse for years and years largely by that word and it has a deep association with anti Semitic thought to him . It reminds me of old white people using the word coloured for black people and telling black people they shouldn't be offended by it when they are (famous poem "you've got the fucking nerve to call me coloured" springs to mind)

What I think the debate needs really is more Jewish input so we can get a balance debate about their standpoint (rather than Baddiel who will Jewish is also a rival fan and perhaps has an agenda or at least may not represent the Jewish communities opinion accurately) as well as a more definitive answer to whether or not the word in itself is offensive or if indeed it only is offensive by use of offensive context

To me its as simple as defining whether the word Yid is like the N word in its history or if as I have always believe it is more like Black and requires context to become offensive

Click to expand...

In regards to your last line, I think Yid is probably between Nigger and Black. It's whole history isnt filled with an entrenched offense, but unlike black it has been used as an offensive word for a small period regardless of the context. However it was only offensive regardless of context because it started to be used in a negative context and thusly its primary meaning changed. This in my opinion lends weight to the argument that it can be used in a positive way and result in having a positive meaning and unifying connotation such as its current use in relation to meaning Tottenham fan.

I oversimplified my point about Nigger in the previous post perhaps- what I was trying to put across is that using a word with such emotive connotations in a hypothetical context isnt perhaps helpful to a debate. Especially as a word such as gay/queer probably has a closer relation to Yid in regards to language evolution in regards to meaning and context.

MattyP said:

I've twatted Baddiel (if only, joke) inviting him to arrange & participate in a reasoned debate about the use of the y word throughout football instead of hiding behind his article. I'm not expecting a response tbh.

Interestingly, Peter Tatchell has tweeted in support of Tottenham. Courtesy of The Fighting Cock.

Click to expand...

A debate on this forum? In spurs chat? That has a thread entitled smear campaign against Baddiel?


Good luck with that.

0-Tibsy-0 said:

In regards to your last line, I think Yid is probably between Nigger and Black. It's whole history isnt filled with an entrenched offense, but unlike black it has been used as an offensive word for a small period regardless of the context. However it was only offensive regardless of context because it started to be used in a negative context and thusly its primary meaning changed. This in my opinion lends weight to the argument that it can be used in a positive way and result in having a positive meaning and unifying connotation such as its current use in relation to meaning Tottenham fan.

I oversimplified my point about Nigger in the previous post perhaps- what I was trying to put across is that using a word with such emotive connotations in a hypothetical context isnt perhaps helpful to a debate. Especially as a word such as gay/queer probably has a closer relation to Yid in regards to language evolution in regards to meaning and context.

Click to expand...

That's my only point though - only argument and only position on the debate

To me its all about whether or not the word Yid is offensive in itself or if it requires context to become offensive, so I feel the N word is useful in this debate in as far as it illustrates that there are such words that's history over ride an ability for a football team to simply reclaim the word and use the context argument to make it acceptable

That being said - I have always believed (and still do) that Yid is not such a word. I have simply being saying for the sake of argument that if indeed (as Ledley and them suggest) it is the same as the N word (which I don't believe it is) then it would not be acceptable.

But as I have said - it has always been my understanding that Yid was not in itself offensive but rather only offensive when used in offensive context and I myself have chanted the word at matches more times than I could possibly count.

I am interested to know more about both the history of the word and the perspective of the Jewish community about our use of the word

I suspect as you say it is more like the word Gay - which was initially adopted by Gay rights movements in San Francisco as an acronym to me Good As You (along with the connotations to happy that the word already had) and it only became offensive due to people attaching offensive context to it and even now when used without offensive context it is perfectly acceptable to call someone a Gay man where as calling someone a Gay **** would not be - people have used gay as offensive term by itself for some time too, but unlike the N word its not fundamentally offensive and I believe this is the same with Yid

I also don't think there would be a debate if we were chanting Gay army like some Gay Pride army - so there does at least seem to be a perception that the word Yid is in someway worse than Gay but again I'd need to know more both about the history of the word and the Jewish communities opinion of the word.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a formal high profile debate on this subject considering the media attention it received after the Black Lawyer incident. I think it would be very interesting to hear such a debate if it involved leaders of the Jewish community, someone opposed to the use like Baddiel, a historian perhaps who could detail the words history and if it had any links to the Haulocaust etc so the debate could firstly indentify whether or not the word itself is actually offensive or if it need context to become so.