Football and Racism

[Sarmatian]

Several days ago, an U21 football match between Serbia and England ended in an all out brawl. There were shoves, punches, slaps involving all 22 players, plus back ups and coaches. Yet the most horrendous thing that happened was racism. English player, Danny Rose (a black guy obviously) was, according to him anyway, been subject to racial abuse "every time he touched the ball". It garnered such attention that even British PM and sports minister got involved, demanding draconian punishment against Serbian football, including several years ban for clubs and national team.

What's gonna happen doesn't concern me really, I'd welcome such a ban for different reasons, but I'm somewhat curious about whole racism issue.

I'm going to put forth a theory - there is no racism in Serbia. It may sound controversial, as eastern European countries are often labelled as being extremely racist, but bear with me. For proof, I'm gonna point out that in Serbia, a 100 years ago, a black guy could get a job in a circus, just sitting there with people paying to see him. They never saw a black man before, it was as much of a curiosity as bearded lady. It's hard to talk about racism when the people and the country as a whole had virtually no contact with black people before few decades ago. Another curiosity is that just about every black footballer who ever played for a Serbian team didn't mention it, and some indeed chose to live in Serbia after their careers ended. Most of them, in fact, decided to speak out after this and say there is no racism in Serbia. Sure, there are idiots, just like there are idiots anywhere else, but on the whole, I'm pretty certain there's more real racist among Chelsea fans than in entire Serbia.

Now, onto the case itself. According to the player in question, there were monkey chants every time he touched the ball. Unfortunately, that's not true. In fact, he was doing everything he can to anger the crowd. England was defending a 1:0 lead from the first game and decided to employ time wasting rather early. Danny Rose was the worst, his antics included good ole dropping the ball "accidentally" during a throw-in, or deciding that another play should take a free kick or a throw after he wasted some time by holding the ball among other things, things considered unsportsmanlike. Of course, while it is considered unsportsmanlike, it is not forbidden and English players and Danny Rose had all the right to do it. It's a part of football ever since it was invented. Equally true, it's extremely unpopular with the opposing fans. There's gonna be whistles, boos and jeers when you do it, every time. This match was no exception, and after doing it one time too many, Mr. Rose was subject to them, just like any other player would be. Thing is, his statement was that he was subject to them because he was black. Sorry mate, but if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. This is football, not theater, and the crowd will always, always try to spur their team on and unnerve the opposition. If you can't stand that, go play tennis.
It culminated when the match ended and Danny Rose went to the crowd and made a rude gesture, could have been a middle finger, could have been something else but crowd literally exploded, and not in a good way. Later he kicked the ball at them angrily which was the last straw for the crowd. Only then monkey chanting started. Racism, one could say. True, monkey chanting is definitely racism but the fact is that the crowd was pissed specifically at him, and for how he acted the entire match. It didn't have nothing to do with the fact that he's black, he would have gotten the same treatment were he white or Asian. They just would have tried to insult him in a different way. It was ad hominem, not ad race.

Now, we come to the issue, or issues as the case may be:

1) why do racist insults trump all other insults? People can be insulted based on their nationality, their looks, their intelligence, their hairstyle or lack of hair, especially on a football pitch where culture of the attendance isn't that high and it further brought down by the "herd mentality". We may frown upon it, but we won't punish anyone because of it. The crowd could have called a player an "English cu**" for example. Rude, but no case for punishment. "Black cu**" would have been. Who decided that one is considered rude and the other is a breach of rules or even a crime?

2) are punishments for racism getting out hand? Let's look at the facts - 35+ people who are supposed to act like sportsmen ended up in a brawl. Shouldn't that be much bigger issue? Or when John Terry and Luis Sanchez got 4 and 8 matches ban respectively for racial insults, while Mario Balotelli, who purposefully stepped on opposing player hand and broke his finger got two matches ban. Isn't that much worse?

Now, I'm 100% against racism, but I'm talking institutional racism, real racism, like denying someone schooling or job opportunities, denying someone freedom of movement, of speech, full protection within the legal system etc... When you act like a prick and get insulted because of it, is it really racism? Especially when you would have gotten a similar, but differently worded insult, involving your ancestors, your hair colour, your height, weight or any other distinguishing feature that first caught the eye.

Fire away.

[Papewaio]

Generally if a person cannot control that aspect of their identity then it is considered more nasty to attack that characteristic.

For instance you chose the way you dress, what you consume, how much you exercise. Ultimately if you are fat or fit for the vast majority of people it is a choice.

Your ethnic group was determined by your ancestors. You can get more tanned, colour your hair, dress and talk differently, however at the end of the day your genetic heritage isn't a choice.

Religion due to the way ideas latch in the mind is at the crossroads between heritage and choice.

Attacking someone based on something that is not a choice of theirs is fundamentally unfair. Insulting an entire group because of the actions of a few is over simplified, base thinking and uncivilized. So to attack someone based on which ethnic group they inherited is a very low act not worthy of a modern citizen.

[Major Robert Dump]

It's hard to say. They are a different breed in that part of the world. Some of it is just innocent fun, as they see no harm, and some of it is inquisitiveness. I saw the same thing in SE Asia.

I have a Russian friend named Ivan who I sometimes drink with in Norman. Many years ago when he first came to the states, we went out to a BBQ restaurant where he innocently proclaimed "These N*****s make very good BBQ!"

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think there is a perception that football hooligans from Eastern Europe tend to be very racist. I've seen a lot of pictures and videos of their fans using far-right symbolism at the games. Maybe this is just the 'Ultras', but you would know better than me.

Anyway, people are just sensitive about racism because it is true that even a couple of decades ago in the UK, institutional racism was a big thing that black people had to face. I wouldn't say there has been any real visible examples of this in my lifetime, but the first black footballers in the UK faced horrendous abuse every game.

Of course you are right that really racist abuse is no worse than abusing people over their looks or intelligence, but the fact is that pretty much all of us subconsciously regard ugly, stupid people as lesser people. I bet that they are the people that will really struggle in life, yet barely a word is said about that. Such is life.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The way you described it the racial attacks seem completely insignificant. If someone deserves insult you're going to hit em where it hurts.

We perceive that there are racial problems in our world so we take a no-tolerance line even in cases like this to help spread the message. He deserved it? Yes but consider the problems of society as a whole, basically.I think it's a question whether this has become counterproductive in our times though.

[Beskar]

There are different kinds of discrimination. Some one being completely out of shape for a job so they are unable to perform it is such an example. Such distinctions are acceptable to a meritocratic society. On the contrary, stating "You cannot do this job because you are Black", even though that person can clearly do the job in a professional manner is a discrimination which is clearly unacceptable. Now replace "black" with "male/female", "heterosexual/homosexual" and other such examples which do not affect that persons performance, then the same applies.

[Strike For The South]

Serbia is a terrible country

Danny Rose is a stand up gentleman

[HoreTore]

Bah, young people of today, no knowledge of history... Tsk, tsk.

First off, the "black guy in a cage" was all the rage all over Europe during the late 1800's. Heck, we Nordics even had our "Serbs in a cage"-display. I hear the good ladies fainted when they saw the savages...

Anyway, back to football. The actual reason there's a heavy penalty for racism in football has nothing to do at all with racism. I know you follow football closely Sarmatian, I am somewhat surprised you didn't know this. Oh well, I guess it's down to geography.

Hooliganism was an extreme problem a couple of decades ago. People actually got killed, player buses were stoned more often than not, etc. Not just in England either, this happened all over. Heck, even my tiny home town of Mjøndalen saw its share of hooliganism. One of my fathers proudest tales is when he was part of the group who flipped 5 police cars with coppers still inside after a match against Fredrikstad...

After years of doing little but hold each others penises, the various FA's, FIFA and UEFA finally realized that this had to stop: "normal fans" started loosing interest due to the bullies. Would you take your wife and two kids on an away match in England in 1981? I think not...

The crackdown was actually extremely effective. For example, the hooligan culture in Vålerenga's fan club Apeberget(monkey mountain) was completely removed in a single season, and the new fan club Klanen(the clan) is remarkably better. While families tend to stay clear of the F/G-fields, I always see a large number of families in their midst. Unthinkable in the 80's.

The crackdown was effective because it was done on every front thinkable. The police were involved, youth groups were involved, civil authorities were involved, the clubs were involved. Fans were identified, restraining orders were issued by the courts, tickets and club memberships revoked. Security personell were given long lists of markings to look for, and if found the person was denied entry. And now we get to racism: the unwanted fans shared had several things in common. They loved flares. So, flares were banned. They loved racist chants. So, racism was banned.

That's the reason racism is punished severely these days. There's no way flares would've been banned if the hooligans hadn't used them; the fire hazard excuse is lame. And there's no way racism would've been punished so severely if not for the actions of idiot fans three deades ago.

In short: racism is banned because it's a measure to contain unwanted elements and make football attractive to a wider audience, not because of it's inherent characteristics.


And a final word: eastern europe is now on the bottom of the heap when it comes to fan retardism. Serbia, and most famously Red Star, are among the most retarded of the bunch. May they burn the lot of 'em, noone needs their neanderthal brains around a football stadium. Send them to Siberia instead.

[johnhughthom]

I suppose all the other instances of racism in Serbia in the past were the player's fault too, Sarmatian?

Here in Northern Ireland we like to bury our head in the sands too. The IFA and Norn Irn fans pretend that Windsor Park is not a sectarian cesspit anymore, and Catholics should not feel intimidated at international matches. It's not as bad as it was before, but sectarian chanting is still rife.

edit: You're probably going to ask what that has to do with Serbia. Well, about ten years ago there was an incident where a Catholic Northern Ireland player received death threats and abuse from the crowds. I heard the same sort of arguments then, 'oh plenty of Catholic players play for Northern Ireland' 'some of our most popular players are Catholic' 'it's his attitude, not his religion, he doesn't seem to care about playing for Northern Ireland'. I was at the matches, the abuse was nothing to do with any perceived lack of effort, it was animal hatred, pure and simple. As for the 'herd mentality', absolute garbage. Individuals choose how they behave, I was surrounded by people shouting sectarian abuse and was able to refrain from following. Admittedly, I didn't raise an objection, but I like my kneecaps the way they are.

[Sarmatian]

So to attack someone based on which ethnic group they inherited is a very low act not worthy of a modern citizen.

No arguments there. My question is why is an attack on someone's nationality considered rude, and an attack on someone's race a breach rules, involving heavy fines and other penalties?

Bah, young people of today, no knowledge of history... Tsk, tsk.

First off, the "black guy in a cage" was all the rage all over Europe during the late 1800's. Heck, we Nordics even had our "Serbs in a cage"-display. I hear the good ladies fainted when they saw the savages...

They fainted because of the manliness and good looks. Who can blame them, really - their men, who used to wear horned helmets and big axes in the past, are now bunch of pansies.

That's the reason racism is punished severely these days. There's no way flares would've been banned if the hooligans hadn't used them; the fire hazard excuse is lame. And there's no way racism would've been punished so severely if not for the actions of idiot fans three deades ago.

In short: racism is banned because it's a measure to contain unwanted elements and make football attractive to a wider audience, not because of it's inherent characteristics.

Well, fact No.1 is that football is sport for the unwashed masses. Sure, there are yuppies who think it's cool to see a football game nowadays, but the sport is primarily watched by lower and middle class. That was true 150 years ago and is true today. What we're talking about here is not hooliganism but but general rude behavior. Regardless how much an extremely intelligent man that I am can found boos and jeers directed at teenagers distasteful, it is, was and will be a part of football. What you don't do is provoke an audience even more.

Anyhoo, I consider violence much worse than a racist insult, and what should have been talked about, first and foremost, is the all out brawl at the end of the match.

And a final word: eastern europe is now on the bottom of the heap when it comes to fan retardism. Serbia, and most famously Red Star, are among the most retarded of the bunch. May they burn the lot of 'em, noone needs their neanderthal brains around a football stadium. Send them to Siberia instead.

You are a kind and smart man, sir, and I hope football gods hear you. Hopefully Red Star will go the way of Rangers with cca. 65M debt.

I suppose all the other instances of racism in Serbia in the past were the player's fault too, Sarmatian?

Names, dates and places, please.

As I've said, there are idiots and there's always gonna be idiots, but there's no organized and institutional abuse against blacks. Except some far right groups, which exist unfortunately everywhere in the world, no black man will ever be in trouble in Serbia just because the colour of his skin

Here in Northern Ireland we like to bury our head in the sands too. The IFA and Norn Irn fans pretend that Windsor Park is not a sectarian cesspit anymore, and Catholics should not feel intimidated at international matches. It's not as bad as it was before, but sectarian chanting is still rife.

edit: You're probably going to ask what that has to do with Serbia. Well, about ten years ago there was an incident where a Catholic Northern Ireland player received death threats and abuse from the crowds. I heard the same sort of arguments then, 'oh plenty of Catholic players play for Northern Ireland' 'some of our most popular players are Catholic' 'it's his attitude, not his religion, he doesn't seem to care about playing for Northern Ireland'. I was at the matches, the abuse was nothing to do with any perceived lack of effort, it was animal hatred, pure and simple. As for the 'herd mentality', absolute garbage. Individuals choose how they behave, I was surrounded by people shouting sectarian abuse and was able to refrain from following. Admittedly, I didn't raise an objection, but I like my kneecaps the way they are.

That is a very different issue. Northern Ireland has seen a lot of violence and there still is some bad blood between Protestants and Catholics.

I'd be much more inclined to talk about racism, or some other -ism, if the player in question was an Albanian or a Croat. But black? Plee-hee-hee-ease...