Smear campaign against Baddiel

[Coyboy]

Then your logic is fucked.

And, outside of a small group of people ( namely the hardcore of Spurs fans ) it is a racist term.

No it isn't, Jews refer to themselves using the term.

 

[Coyboy]

They're not saying that either :

Ch Supt Johnson told Radio 5 Live that the situation would be deemed more serious if opposition fans used “Yid” in an abusive way.
“There’s a slight difference when we do get opposing fans doing it,” he said.
“They’re doing it in terms of causing offence. There is a balance to be struck around who it is aimed at and who finds it insulting.”

Again not what a copper told me, he said essentially ignore all the vile crap that was coming out of West Ham's mouths re the Hitler song and just looking for a fight/effing and blinding and using the term **** on the train- you can't say the word "yid" in any context because it's anti-semitic.

 

[jambreck]

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

The analogy doesn't work on a couple of levels.

Firstly, the 'n' word originated as a white man's word for black people and, for almost the entirety of its existence, has been deeply offensive. By contrast, the word "yid" originated as Ashkenazi Jews' reference to themselves and as another way to say "buddy" or even "sir". It has only been used as a pejorative for a comparatively short period - and hasn't been used widely as that for many decades. So much so that, in my experience, more people under a certain age are likely to associate the word with Spurs than they are to associate it with Jewishness.

Which brings us to the second reason why the analogy doesn't work.

We can't turn back time. We can't undo what is done. It's all very well hypothesising about what we would do now or what we would have done in different circumstances. But that's all it can be. Hypothesis. The circumstances that arose were the ones to which we responded. Not a wholly different set of circumstances involving a different word altogether. And not now. We're not starting from ground zero. It's 2013. Forty years or so since we first adopted the word "yid". The likes of Baddiel and Herbert demanding that we shed the word now, long after it has taken on a new meaning and become a part of our identity, is unrealistic and reveals a failure to understand how language evolves. They, or those who are like minded, should have intervened 30-40 years ago. Then they might have stood a chance.

 

[Shea]

The analogy doesn't work on a couple of levels.

Firstly, the 'n' word originated as a white man's word for black people and, for almost the entirety of its existence, has been deeply offensive. By contrast, the word "yid" originated as Ashkenazi Jews' reference to themselves and as another way to say "buddy" or even "sir". It has only been used as a pejorative for a comparatively short period - and hasn't been used widely for many decades. So much so that, in my experience, more people under a certain age are likely to associate the word with Spurs than they are to associate it with Jewishness.

Which brings us to the second reason why the analogy doesn't work.

We can't turn back time. We can't undo what is done. It's all very well hypothesising about what we would do now or what we would have done in different circumstances. But that's all it can be. Hypothesis. The circumstances that arose were the ones to which we responded. Not a wholly different set of circumstances involving a different word altogether. And not now. We're not starting from ground zero. It's 2013. Forty years or so since we first adopted the word "yid". The likes of Baddiel and Herbert demanding that we shed the word now, long after it has taken on a new meaning and become a part of our identity, is unrealistic and reveals a failure to understand how language evolves. They, or those who are like minded, should have intervened 30-40 years ago. Then they might have stood a chance.

That's exactly my point - I am not saying the N word and the Y word are the same (in fact if you bothered to read any of what I wrote I have stated many times that I believe they are not and that the Y word is more like black or gay)

I simply used the analogy of the N word as a perfect example to illustrate that there are certain words that due to their history are offensive regardless of context so I said IF (key word you have over looked) as what Ledley and Lineker are saying is true and the history of the word Yid is the similar then under those circumstances our use of it WOULD be unacceptable regardless of context

I also stated I don't personally know enough about the history of the word Yid or indeed the perception of the Jewish community to our use of it to make a judgement on the word Yid specifically - only that the N word analogy illustrates that the context argument and David Cameron's statement is too simplistic if a word is fundamentally offensive and has links to dehumanisation and mass murder

But then I never stated that I thought the Y word is offensive without context - in fact I said it was always my understanding that it is not

 

[Coyboy]

That's exactly my point - I am not saying the N word and the Y word are the same (in fact if you bothered to read any of what I wrote I have stated many times that I believe they are not and that the Y word is more like black or gay)

I simply used the analogy of the N word as a perfect example to illustrate that there are certain words that due to their history are offensive regardless of context so I said IF (key word you have over looked) as what Ledley and Lineker are saying is true and the history of the word Yid is the similar then under those circumstances our use of it WOULD be unacceptable regardless of context

I also stated I don't personally know enough about the history of the word Yid or indeed the perception of the Jewish community to our use of it to make a judgement on the word Yid specifically - only that the N word analogy illustrates that the context argument and David Cameron's statement is too simplistic if a word is fundamentally offensive and has links to dehumanisation and mass murder

But then I never stated that I thought the Y word is offensive without context - in fact I said it was always my understanding that it is not

I love Ledley, but he is no academic and frankly I found Lineker's history lesson rather pathetic. Stick to the Walkers adverts me thinks.

 

[jambreck]

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)

Bit of a straw man argument. I haven't seen anyone telling Baddiel that he has no right to be offended. He doesn't need such a right. He either is offended or isn't.

What he doesn't have, though, is the right NOT to be offended.

Not if no offence is intended. Mens Rea.

 

[Shea]

Bit of a straw man argument. I haven't seen anyone telling Baddiel that he has no right to be offended. He doesn't need such a right. He either is offended or isn't.

What he doesn't have, though, is the right NOT to be offended.

Not if no offence is intended. Mens Rea.

Are you sure?

The opening post in this thread is all about how we should start a smear campaign against him because of his comments about our use of the word

He obviously finds the use of the word regardless of context to be offensive against him and his people in the same way black people would find it offensive for a crowd of 30k white guys chanting the N word to be offensive regardless of whether the chanting was meant to be offensive

I don't think anyone should have an issue with Baddiel taking offensive to the word - because for all we know he has valid and personal reasons from years of abuse from that very word and associates it with hatred of his people

As I said I am I find it ridiculous for a non Jew to take issue with a Jewish man's reaction to how a word that describes his people and has been used as an offensive term for them. It reminds me very much of the old white people I hear telling black people that its not offensive to call them coloured

 

[Shea]

I love Ledley, but he is no academic and frankly I found Lineker's history lesson rather pathetic. Stick to the Walkers adverts me things.

To be honest both have clearly just been told what to say - its attaching a famous face to an agenda/campaign not necessarily their personal views and certainly not views they have researched or come up with themselves

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

But offense from a word is pure social construct, a word on it's own does not have positive or negative connotations in terms of an insult. If somebody believes one word can take on offensive meaning through it's use and context and can determine when it is offensive. Then they sure as hell should be intelligent enough to be able to tell when it is not offensive and to realise that if you can socially construct a negative connotation to a word then you can do it in the opposite direction as well. This is why I struggle to see how people feel Tottenhams use is offensive. They may not like the word, but it shouldnt logically be offensive to someone in this context, especially given it's long history of being an acceptable Yiddish word amongst many of the worlds Jews.

 

[jambreck]

Are you sure?

The opening post in this thread is all about how we should start a smear campaign against him because of his comments about our use of the word

He obviously finds the use of the word regardless of context to be offensive against him and his people in the same way black people would find it offensive for a crowd of 30k white guys chanting the N word to be offensive regardless of whether the chanting was meant to be offensive

I don't think anyone should have an issue with Baddiel taking offensive to the word - because for all we know he has valid and personal reasons from years of abuse from that very word and associates it with hatred of his people

As I said I am I find it ridiculous for a non Jew to take issue with a Jewish man's reaction to how a word that describes his people and has been used as an offensive term for them. It reminds me very much of the old white people I hear telling black people that its not offensive to call them coloured

Sorry but it is just plain wrong to claim that the objection to Baddiel is that he finds Spurs fans' use of the word "yid" offensive. He can be offended by whatever he chooses.

The objection to Baddiel is that, wilfully ignoring context and ignorant as to the nature of language, he started and continues to drive a campaign to ban Spurs fans from using the word - the upshot of which has been to criminalise innocent people.

 

[weststandvoice]

‘It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that”, as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. “I’m offended by that.” Well, so fucking what?’​

Stephen Fry​

 

[Coyboy]

To be honest both have clearly just been told what to say - its attaching a famous face to an agenda/campaign not necessarily their personal views and certainly not views they have researched or come up with themselves

Quite, and I am sure Jews were referred to as, well, Jews by Nazis.

This has been said before but other than in cases of vile abuse (i.e. references to the Holocaust and clear vindictive language that can have no other purpose or effect than to offend) if you are offended by the term, you are offended by the term. Be offended, nothing happens. No one has a right to go through life pointing at words, people or things and say "that offends me, stop doing it".

My housemate watches "Geordie Shore". I find that offensive.

 

[Shea]

Sorry but it is just plain wrong to claim that the objection to Baddiel is that he finds Spurs fans' use of the word "yid" offensive. He can be offended by whatever he chooses.

The objection to Baddiel is that, wilfully ignoring context and ignorant as to the nature of language, he started and continues to drive a campaign to ban Spurs fans from using the word - the upshot of which has been to criminalise innocent people.

He obviously personally feels the word is still offensive even in the context we use it and I don't see why people are angry at him for feeling sensitive about the word especially if they are non Jewish and simply cannot relate to how it makes him feel

To Baddiel it seems the word is offensive in the same way the N word or Coloured is to black people and he's entitled to voice his opinion as a Jewish man objecting to the use of the word by non Jewish football supporters if he finds it offensive without being abused or smeared by said football fans

Now that this issue has reached the stage of national and international news (I've seen in on international CNN) and is beginning to tarnish the name and image of our club and legal proceedings are being taken against our fans for chanting it- what I believe needs to happen is some kind of official debate where the history of the word and its use in context needs to be debated and defined with arguments made from the respective sides to justify their points with in put from the Jewish community on their perspective of whether or not it is offensive to them (rather than a bunch of non jews arguing over whether it is or isn't offending the Jewish community)

I absolutely believe there are certain words - most obviously the N word - that have such a deep rooted history in dehumanisation and justification for wrong doings that they are in themselves intrinsically offensive and unacceptable. I don't think anyone would argue we had a right to chant the N word regardless of context had our history evolved in a way to show solidarity to the black community instead of the Jewish

But as I said so many times before - I have never believed the word Yid is as offensive as the N word without context of intended offence. I am not an expert on the origins or the history of the word itself - I don't really know anything more than what is listed on the Wiki page about it and it was always my understanding that Yid actually meant Jew just in a different language (but as I say I have no real knowledge on the history)

To me the debate would have to either put an end to the controversy surrounding the word and our use of it so that we could do so without the media dragging our name through the mud and portraying us as racist/anti semites or those who dispute our right to sing it would have to prove that it is offensive to the Jewish community even in the context we use it as the N word would be to black people (say for example they could prove the word Yid had a similar history involving the Haulocaust etc)

A major reason I suspect the Jewish community is not as offended as the Media seem to be and indeed the word is not offensive without intent is the mere fact it has taken so long to really become an issue. If we had been chanting the N word for 40 odd years there's no way it wouldn't have been outlawed long before now, the black community would be up in arms and I dare say the club would have banned it from the ground with anyone being caught using it being banned for life and probably arrested by the police.

So the fact I see/hear very little word about this issue coming from the Jewish community other than Baddiel himself only further supports my original understanding that the word itself is not offensive without offensive context and as such our use of the word should be inoffensive and acceptable.

I would like to see a debate that defined this argument conclusively and put the debate to bed one way or another - I'd like to hear this debate involve the history of the word, the Jewish community and there perspective and I'd like to hopefully see the issue folded as a non event so that our clubs name can stop being tarnished and our fans can stop being arrested while the likes of West Ham, Chelsea and Lazio make overly racist and anti semitic chants with little to know media attention or legal consequence

 

[Misfit]

I'm more of an Eon man myself, those EDF types are so mainstream and aren't properly fighting the cause. Wouldn't go as far as hanging with those extremist NPower nutters though, they're too hardcore even for me. Splitters!!

Jaysus, talk about a Freudian slip. Had nightmares with those bastards a few yrs back. The experience has obviously left deeper scars than I ever imagined.

Never again!

 

[jambreck]

He obviously personally feels the word is still offensive even in the context we use it and I don't see why people are angry at him for feeling sensitive about the word especially if they are non Jewish and simply cannot relate to how it makes him feel

I just said that the objection to Baddiel isn't that he finds the word offensive.

To Baddiel it seems the word is offensive in the same way the N word or Coloured is to black people and he's entitled to voice his opinion as a Jewish man objecting to the use of the word by non Jewish football supporters if he finds it offensive without being abused or smeared by said football fans

He's entitled to think whatever he wants and to express publicly whatever feelings he has. He's not entitled to demand, and to persist in demanding, that we not chant the word.

No one has the right not to be offended.

Now that this issue has reached the stage of national and international news (I've seen in on international CNN) and is beginning to tarnish the name and image of our club and legal proceedings are being taken against our fans for chanting it-

I haven't seen the name and image of our club being tarnished internationally. The reports that I've seen and read have all discussed why we use the word. It actually paints us in a fantastic light.

what I believe needs to happen is some kind of official debate where the history of the word and its use in context needs to be debated and defined with arguments made from the respective sides to justify their points with in put from the Jewish community on their perspective of whether or not it is offensive to them (rather than a bunch of non jews arguing over whether it is or isn't offending the Jewish community)

We're already having the debate. What has it achieved? It won't stop Spurs fans who want to do so from singing "yid army" etc. They have every right to use the word. Nor will a debate stop those people who are determined to be offended by the word, regardless of context, from being offended.

This is not a matter of whether some people in the Jewish community find the use of the word by Spurs fans to be offensive. People are understandably sensitive about this but the truth is that Jewish people have no special say in the matter that outweighs all other opinion. No one owns the word. It has different meanings in different contexts.

I absolutely believe there are certain words - most obviously the N word - that have such a deep rooted history in dehumanisation and justification for wrong doings that they are in themselves intrinsically offensive and unacceptable. I don't think anyone would argue we had a right to chant the N word regardless of context had our history evolved in a way to show solidarity to the black community instead of the Jewish

"Yid" is not such a word. As you say, you know it. I know it. We all know it. This analogy isn't useful.

To me the debate would have to either put an end to the controversy surrounding the word and our use of it so that we could do so without the media dragging our name through the mud and portraying us as racist/anti semites or those who dispute our right to sing it would have to prove that it is offensive to the Jewish community even in the context we use it as the N word would be to black people (say for example they could prove the word Yid had a similar history involving the Haulocaust etc)

I would like to see a debate that defined this argument conclusively and put the debate to bed one way or another - I'd like to hear this debate involve the history of the word, the Jewish community and there perspective and I'd like to hopefully see the issue folded as a non event so that our clubs name can stop being tarnished and our fans can stop being arrested while the likes of West Ham, Chelsea and Lazio make overly racist and anti semitic chants with little to know media attention or legal consequence

That's entirely your choice.

Personally, I don't require there to be a public debate on the matter to know that I have every right to use the word in the context of Spurs.

 

[NEVILLEB]

This is similar to the way the 'N' word was used in Rap music and in Tarantino films in the 90's. It's the same word but the meaning is different.

So from the outside we think, what's the fuss? It doesn't mean anything bad. But then we don't have the memories of the way the term was used to belittle and discriminate against black people.

For some people, the 'Y' word, is an offensive, racist term and maybe Jewish people have the right to have ownership of the term.

So many we could drop it and come up with something new.

It's losing some tradition yes, but we can use the opportunity to come up with something even better.

In the end, it not a major life event so let's man up and drop it.

 

[jambreck]

This is similar to the way the 'N' word was used in Rap music and in Tarantino films in the 90's. It's the same word but the meaning is different.

So from the outside we think, what's the fuss? It doesn't mean anything bad. But then we don't have the memories of the way the term was used to belittle and discriminate against black people.

For some people, the 'Y' word, is an offensive, racist term and maybe Jewish people have the right to have ownership of the term.

So many we could drop it and come up with something new.

It's losing some tradition yes, but we can use the opportunity to come up with something even better.

In the end, it not a major life event so let's man up and drop it.

No. They don't. They really don't.

This is just language. A noise formed in the mouth. Symbols on a page.

It only has meaning in a given context.

By the way, I'm struggling to see in what way "manning up" is relevant.

 

[NEVILLEB]

No. They don't. They really don't.

This is just language. A noise formed in the mouth. Symbols on a page.

It only has meaning in a given context.

By the way, I'm struggling to see in what way "manning up" is relevant.

Words can have emotional meanings to different people. I grew up with the 'N' in films and music and to me it has been used like saying 'brother'. However to my black friends it conjures up emotions/memories related to slavery and abuse.

So, as a man, I respect their feelings and don't say it. No big loss. Anything I may get out of using it is insignificant next to the anger and distress it causes them.

Maybe you are not able to put yourself in other people's shoes?

Hopefully we've all got enough perspective in life to realise, not chanting something which some people feel is racist, isn't the end of the world.

 

[Shea]

I just said that the objection to Baddiel isn't that he finds the word offensive.



He's entitled to think whatever he wants and to express publicly whatever feelings he has. He's not entitled to demand, and to persist in demanding, that we not chant the word.

No one has the right not to be offended.



I haven't seen the name and image of our club being tarnished internationally. The reports that I've seen and read have all discussed why we use the word. It actually paints us in a fantastic light.



We're already having the debate. What has it achieved? It won't stop Spurs fans who want to do so from singing "yid army" etc. They have every right to use the word. Nor will a debate stop those people who are determined to be offended by the word, regardless of context, from being offended.

This is not a matter of whether some people in the Jewish community find the use of the word by Spurs fans to be offensive. People are understandably sensitive about this but the truth is that Jewish people have no special say in the matter that outweighs all other opinion. No one owns the word. It has different meanings in different contexts.



"Yid" is not such a word. As you say, you know it. I know it. We all know it. This analogy isn't useful.



That's entirely your choice.

Personally, I don't require there to be a public debate on the matter to know that I have every right to use the word in the context of Spurs.

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.

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

Words can have emotional meanings to different people. I grew up with the 'N' in films and music and to me it has been used like saying 'brother'. However to my black friends it conjures up emotions/memories related to slavery and abuse.

So, as a man, I respect their feelings and don't say it. No big loss. Anything I may get out of using it is insignificant next to the anger and distress it causes them.

Maybe you are not able to put yourself in other people's shoes?

Hopefully we've all got enough perspective in life to realise, not chanting something which some people feel is racist, isn't the end of the world.

IT'S NOT RACIST IN THIS CONTEXT AND THERE IS A LONG HISTORY OF THIS WORD BEFORE IT HAD RACIST CONNOTATIONS.