What follows is sent in by HH reader Richard. His frustration is your gain. Presented with the “consultation exercise” from THFC, Richard found himself irritated by its construction and given the nature of the discussion he found the character limit of the reply box too restrictive.
My view is that box was designed for “thumbnail opinions” which given the weight of the top is immensely patronizing. Note; the survey swerved the most salient option of a simple yes/no vote, so did they want considered thoughts, or not?
[divider]
Until this morning I was out of the country and did not have internet access. I arrived back this morning and found an email from Populus canvasing my opinion on the word Yid. Whilst completing the survey I had a number of concerns about the closed question manner it was taking, followed by largely weighted quotes against the use of the word Yid and a 3,000 character limited word space for my opinion.
It took me 45 minutes to fit what I had to say in that box, because the issue is so much broader than just should we or should we not use a term. It is, fundamentally, about two linked but separate cultures both claiming an identity with a term in different ways.
Because of that opinions are bound to be divergent and the question is impossible. The debate is also wrong aimed. Why are, we, the victims of anti-Semitism, asked to be the ones to change our actions first, before the anti-Semites? Had rival clubs stopped anti-Semitic chanting then there would be validity for us to end our use of the word Yid, but we aren’t at that point yet and the issue that’s being raised, as a result, is moot.
I’m certain no one will actually read what I wrote, because it doesn’t match the answer the club want. I’ve saved a copy of what I wrote in that box, along with what I wrote in the additional comments box (not character limited by the way. Why limit my opinion, but not any else I want to add, unless they don’t really want my opinion?)
I’m disappointed in Spurs. Letting me down on the pitch is one thing, but considering the fact that you can’t be prosecuted for using a term in a positive, embracing manner, the way this looks more and more like a fait accompli is alarming.
Ultimately the issue at hand boils down to ownership of a term. Spurs fans have used the term positively for thirty years, whilst Jews have been subject to abuse and vilification far longer. And this is why this issue is so problematic. Non-Jewish Tottenham fans cannot see why their are being denied their identity, and Non-Tottenham supporting Jews can’t understand why we use a term they regard as offensive.
Amongst the Tottenham support Jews I imagine the issue is split pretty much down the middle. This is an impossible discussion. The closest case I think of to this one involves the word boy. Until the mid part of the 20th Century the word boy referred specifically to black servants.
Yet now we use the term for any male child without any issue. If the black community were to claim that they considered boy an offensive term, would that mean that overnight everyone in the English speaking world would have to stop using it and revert back to referring to all children as girls? The meaning of words is a very problematic thing. As in the boy instance, some groups have obviously surrendered their ownership of a term, whilst in the case of the word yid their is a layered meaning now on top of it. As I said, it’s an impossible discussion.
The real question is why are we having it?
This issue came up last year, and then after a few assaults by foreign fans in the Europa League it was quietly swept under the carpet. Now Herbert has reignited it and the club are making an issue of it too. Initially they came out with statements making it clear that they did not consider our fans to be racists.
The take home message was that the fans were doing nothing wrong. In the weeks since, in light of this survey, that view at club level has clearly changed. Big businesses care about two things more than anything else; the bottom line and the brand. I’m being cynical about this, but you only have to consider that getting fourth is now considered a bigger deal than winning the FA Cup or the Europa League to understand how money-motivated football is. Brand is an issue here too.
In the past number of years the club has done a great deal to overhaul the brand; buying British, a new badge, a new training centre, a new stadium in the pipeline, and of course overseas tours. Last year to the US, this year to Asia, to exploit those markets. Has the club’s income fallen as a result of the negative reaction to this yids discussion? Perhaps that is the real reason for the sudden desire to have this ‘discussion.’
I say discussion, but it clearly isn’t. A survey sent to what could be no more than fifty thousand fans, done with a very short deadline. Selected sources, all bit-part quotes. And one box to outline your opinion, with a character limit on it. This isn’t how modern businesses engage with their client bases when they want their opinion.
It should have been done across multiple platforms; social media, emails, at the ground. This seems to me like it is a done deal. To preserve the brand we will be told that the majority of fans are in favour of not using the word yid in relation to Spurs. And then the focus will fall on the ‘small minority’ of fans who continue to chant yid army at games, until the club ban them. It’s private property, so I’m sure that regardless of the legality of whether using a word in a positive, collective, sense cannot lead to prosecution, the owners of private property have the right to eject anyone from their premises.
But why are we even having this discussion? If the issue is anti-semitism in football, as I believe it should be. Shouldn’t we start with the football fans who consider it acceptable to make hissing noises or sing pro-Adolf Hitler songs? Clearly not, because that would involve annoying media darlings Chelsea, and well supported amongst journalists and soon to be Olympic stadium residents West Ham.
You can’t take away a group’s ownership of a term unless the group decides that that term no longer has any relevence. If the club decide that yid can no longer be uttered at Spurs games and this is forced on us without genuine groundswell support (and apart from a handful of people I haven’t seen many Tottenham supporters who are in favour of stopping the us of the word yid in association with Spurs) you’ll get an uproar. Perhaps in the next home game we should just sing ‘Jew Army’ instead? It may be crass, but it could effectively get the opinion across…
Richard.
[divider]
