- Aug 13, 2012
- 11,353
- 44,190
Of course the analogy is useful because it illustrates the potential for a word to offensive even without intent or being used in an offensive context and this provides room for discussion as to whether the meaning and the history of the word itself can be considered fundamentally unacceptable to be chanted at a football stadium - as opposed to Cameron's dismissal that a word must have initial offence behind it to be considered offensive (if the N word was being chanted regardless of intention it would be considered offensive)
So this analogy shows that the debate can't just be dismissed in the style David Cameron's statement does - but in fact the history and meaning of the word needs to be established to determine whether or not it is acceptable
There is also reason for debate because the wider public, media outlets and non Spurs fans do seem to often be of the opinion that our use of the word is unacceptable and we shouldn't be doing it and I have seen plenty of papers and such writing articles suggestion we are propitiating negative or antisemetic behaviour with the chant and as such tarnishing the image of our club/fans
We may be having this debate on here and yes it is pretty much meaningless but then its not making its way to the larger public and is not included in any of the negative story lines in the papers about our Yid chants.
If a debate were to be held where by the notion could be official dismissed as inoffensive after acceptance that the history of the word is not in itself offensive or connected to dehumanisation which lead to acts such as the Haulocaust and it did require intentional offensive context to become unacceptable this could then quash arguments from the likes of Baddiel and end questions raised in the media as to whether or not we should be allowed to sing it and we could go back to singing Yid in support of our club in pride without any negatiivity or indeed potential for action from the police (as was the case on Sunday when a Spurs fan was arrested)
Its all well and good saying you don't need a debate to be held to know what you know - but that doesn't stop the fact that already Spurs fans have been ejected and had police action placed upon them for the use of the word and therefore there exists potential for this to become a wider issue if the police/media/whatever began to pile pressure on the club to stamp down on the use of the word in the stadium
What if the club ended up taking a stance where anyone chanting the word was ejected? or banned from games? or the police continue to arrest fans etc etc?
If such a debate could be held on a higher profile format with in put from historians regarding the word and the Jewish community for its perception on our use of the word then the end result could be a definitive answer to the question as to whether it is acceptable for us to use the term and once it was deemed acceptable for us to do so it would no longer be an issue for the press or the police to consider, it could all be put to bed and moved on from hence why I feel the need for a debate to take place, not for me to know if the term is acceptable but for the wider public and to crush the constant questions and debates in the media about it.
Wrong. Because there are large amounts of people who use this word amongst themselves, mainly younger black people but also white as well. As well as mainstream music. It's not a word I would use, but there are those claiming the word back/ Who is to say in 50 years that it isn't an excepted term in a positive context. LANGUAGE EVOLVES.