I begin with a basic and ironic premise: when dealing with racism, we too often think in terms of black & white. No, not black people and white people, but rather innocence/guilt, right/wrong, good/evil. The most dangerous aspect of evil is its ability to snuff out empathy, even for its own evil bad-ass self. These past few weeks, we’ve seen instances of Spanish-language players, Luis Suarez and Cesc Fabregas, allegedly uttering racist insults. Yet I ask—do our Anglo racial linguistic norms really offer the right and only lens by which to judge them?
I tend to view questions of race in shades of gray. I am half-white, half-Mexican, and my Dad’s nickname for my Anglo mom was guerita. Guera is a term in Mexican-Spanish for white-skinned folks. It harbors no inherent negative connotation. Rather, because a majority of Mexicans have a darker complexion, it is a useful adjective. I turned out freckled and blue eyed like my mom, so I’ve always been the guerito of the family. My wife, from Nicaragua, calls me chele—the respective Nicaraguan word for white folk. And she is my morenita.
Did you see what just happened there? People referred to one another’s skin tone without any racist prejudice. On a superficial level, it is possible to refer to somebody’s race without it being an insult. Yet, in English, my American mind would never dare to say a similar thing. Why? Well, in large part it’s white guilt, but also because of the stranglehold that Anglo linguistic racial constructions have on our imagination. In almost Pavlovian fashion, we all now mindlessly and mechanically seek to stamp out any and all references to a person’s skin color, at least as uttered by the white majority. In a game between Liverpool and United, Evra complained afterwards about a racist comment from Suarez. What happened? The English FA acted on the Frenchman’s complaint, managers said dumb stuff, and everybody watched TV replays to try and read lips. But, the particulars of the case aside, I’m worried more about the assumptions behind Anglo racial linguistic notions.
Here’s the formula: you made a comment with a racial term in it = you are a vile racist = wrath of God. At least if you’re a member of the white majority. Yet behind this effort to stamp out linguistic traces of race lies a very questionable belief: race can be separated from identity. Within debates on racial identity politics, two strands emerge: (1) People who argue for a post-racial world of equality that is color-blind, and (2) People who argue for a world of equality that accepts differences as inherent and of value. Both strands have their problems—the first is arguably cultural imperialism, while the other assumes a static identity for groups. Yet, Anglo racial linguistic notions paint over this debate and side with the first group. What shocks me is how this assumption flies in the face of reality. I have white skin. If we can’t agree or articulate the basics, then how can we cope with the truly complicated stuff behind race relations? It’s like arguing about a weekly grocery budget with your spouse while a bank forecloses on your house.
I side with the second camp and I’d like to see a multicultural US where we accept differences as a part of identity and of value. In a soccer sense, I think that it’s pretty cool Patrice Evra was a diplomat-brat and born in Senegal. Even though Eddie Murphy has done his damnedest to convince me that all black guys are inherent criminal masterminds waiting to help me and other white guys rob a bank, I know that’s not the case. Was being black a key facet to the brilliant music of John Coltrane or Michael Jackson? It certainly formed a part of their identity and, I will argue at risk to life and limb, influenced their lives and added value. America is a better place for their efforts.
But here’s where we get to the clincher: sincerity.
On a superficial level, in the Spanish language one can use the term “negro” or “guero” or “moreno” with no negative connotation. But all language exists in context. I’d only say those terms to family, friends, or acquaintances. Also, if you say the same term with anger in your eyes and hate in your heart, then its meaning can change 180 degrees. In Spanish, to insult somebody you normally add “de mierda” (of shit) at the end of a noun. Thus, while it’s possible Cesc called Kanoute a “Negredo de mierda” (as in Alvaro Negredo, a Spanish forward and teammate) and Suarez maybe innocuously called Evra a “Negro de Monaco” (black person from Monaco), I have my doubts. Even if they just said “negro,” the TV replays show fire in their eyes. Why did that word pop into their head when they were upset?
While Anglo racial linguistic notions may be too simplistic & dated, nobody can deny that white folks in the past few decades have at least learned that their words have an effect on listeners. Empathy is appreciated. Yet we also can’t simply spill our own complex Anglo racist history onto an immigrant from Uruguay and a Spaniard. I have no doubt that Cesc and Suarez said some nasty things. They may even have made some race-based comments that sound kinda bad in Spanish and would sound really bad in English. However, until we move beyond a black/white notion of “racism” and the term “racist”, I don’t feel comfortable labeling either with the same term as I’d put on George Wallace.
Elliott blogs about soccer at Futfanatico.com. His soccer eBook, An Illustrated Guide to Soccer & Spanish, is available for only $5.99 on the Kindle, Nook, and at Goodreads. Check out a free preview here.
Read More: racism
by Elliott · November 1, 2011
While I agree that the Anglo-American complex racial history is unfit for a Uruguayan or Catalan there has to be a middle ground, and I don’t believe that we should be any more tolerant of racial slurs in languages that use these colorful terms more often, even if sometimes without negative connotations. As you say, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Suarez and Fabregas had that fire in their eyes and if this insult popped into their mind and if that is due to their culture’s lenient use of words, there are probably worse things the media could be trying to “stamp out” our lives.
“Why did that word pop into their head when they were upset?”
Right there is the key. Racism is a lot more subtle than the way you’re talking about it here. It’s there with these situations with Suarez and Cesc not because of the particular words that were said, but because in anger, their first reaction was to call attention to differences between them and their intended targets, differences that in those players’ eyes, make them superior to those targets.
This “black/white notion of ‘racism” you’re talking about doesn’t exist. It’s disappointing that you can’t see how much deeper it goes than that. These situations are racist not for the words said but simply because those players felt that the difference (in this case, difference in race) between them, and Kanoute/Evra, made them superior.
Certainly, a Western world functioning around the spirit of freedom of identity within the themes of acceptance sounds more reasonable than one where individuals must force themselves to imagine that all colors are one. The problem with seeing in monochrome is that it is almost a herculean task when you consider how many behaviors people of the same color share — for example, most black people from Harlem speak just as aggressively as most black people from Queens do, and enjoy the same music, and eat the same food — making it extremely easy for an observer to classify and group (should he somehow have a reason for disliking one member of the group, it is natural to sort of hate everyone else).
Fear turns into hatred very quickly. Iberia and Gaul have been subject to mass immigration from North and West Africa over the last three decades, and its unsurprising that the Africans are the scapegoats in recession economies — not unlike Mexicans in America, they have been accused of stealing jobs or hoarding income. It also sparks passions of colonial supremacy, us against the barbarians, the barbarians against us.
I quite enjoyed reading this.
nicely put. free preview link is broken.
@sam I totally agree – but my problem is also that the term “racist” is singular. When I call you a racist, you are fit into the same category as the Klan and pro-segregationists in Alabama in the 50′s. This is why partisan clubs and blogs get so giddy at racial epithets – they can bring on the full wrath of god for even minor linguistic infractions.
@DeiJavu I totally agree that race has several layers – such as Asians and Hispanics who are excluded from the dominant Anglo-African narrative in the US. However, I’m disappointed you still group all racists into one big linguistic box. My preferred term for these instances is racialism – a result of deep rooted prejudices that probably operate on an unconscious level. We can never address these deeper and more meaningful issues with knee jerk slaps on the wrist.
Where exactly is the line where referring to what someone looks like becomes a racist comment? Calling someone “black” is okay but a “black shit” is not? Or should the memo go out that “black shit” is bad but “french shit” is acceptable?
When I was getting my “racism is bad” brainwashing during grade school, one of my teachers called out a student and asked “have you ever heard your parents use racist language?”
Her response: “Only when they’re driving.”
It’s been over two decades since and I’ve yet to meet anyone in the US who isn’t racist/sexist/agist when driving. When our blood is up, we default to the most obviously visible physical characteristics we see. I’m not defending it. I’m just saying that think we all do it still.
“What shocks me is how this assumption flies in the face of reality.” Brilliant line. Unfortunately the dominant model for “understanding” racism is based on a post-metaphysical view of “reality” as a construct masking power interests. Glad to see Run of Play supports good ol’ Aristotelian realism.
@njwv Brilliant honesty. This is a prime example of how these prejudices linger and boil up at heated moments. Only by being honest and bringing it to light can we address it. Thank you.
@The Grazer Fixed. Good catch.
Not comfortable with calling them “racist”? Why didn’t they just call their targets “shits”? In a country where crowds have been caught monkey-chanting (Google hits on “spain monkey chant” detail 3 separate incidents in the first four results) on numerous occasions. This ranks their country alongside Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria and Russia – those well-known havens of racial tolerance – in the “ill-treatment of black player” stakes. These players, multi-millionaire poster-boys, are looked on as heroes by young men and children. As long as they feel the need to bring race into things, then they are mirroring and validating an unacceptable face of their culture.
Spain have had very few black players – Marcos Senna being a notable recent exception – and this only serves to reinforce an “us and them” distinction. While Senna himself claims never to have experienced any racism in Spain, this means very little if you look up “ingroup-outgroup distinction” – summarised as “he’s okay for ‘one of them’”.
While invoking psychology, here’s a little mentioned fact: everyone is inherently prejudiced. The human brain simply cannot comprehend the vast amounts of social data it must process. Some of us are prejudiced on fashion grounds, or age, or gender; others still on religion, sexuality or nationality; and all of these things are bad if you don’t take time to look beyond initial appearances. Racism is the simplest and most enduring prejudice because it is based entirely on skin, hair, and eyes alone – the most basic bodily appearances – and is therefore the most dangerous because it requires no understanding beyond “he/she looks different”. Invoking race as Suarez and Fabregas did is pandering to this simple, vile divisionism.
To talk up linguistic differences, only to later strip them away and focus on intent, is to obfuscate the issue: it is not “Anglo-white-guilt” that is behind the criticism of the insults, but Euro-centric superiority behind the abuse. Remember, Uruguay was colonised by Spain, just as America was colonised by (initially) England & other Germanics (Wikipedia records the “Native” population of Uruguay as “practically nonexistent”). Monkey-chants echo the imperialistic dehumanisation of African “Negroes” as a sub-human race, to justify European colonisation and the less-than-Christian treatment that the natives endured. Knowing your global history better reveals the broader paradigms behind racism: Christian moral denial, rationalised conquest, slavery, and dehumanisation. That’s why Kanoute lost his temper so thoroughly: to dismiss someone on racial grounds is to say they are less than you.
@Thierry Ennui so, if I get your point – Spain colonized Uruguay a few hundred years ago therefore a Uruguayan immigrant in England who arguably made a racial remark to a French-Senegalese immigrant also in England probably said so because his human mind is inevitably prejudiced but should still be categorized as a sinner equal to George Wallace?
I’m not defending racial epithets – if anything, I was trying to 1) Mock the lip-readers because 2) This superficial analysis papers over lingering and deeper prejudices – which are the true problem. You’re not going to get any thoughtful self-reflection and improvement by cornering people and trying to tattoo a label on them. And you obliterate any chance at truthful dialogue.
I’m Brazilian and have given up on trying to explain the complexity of this with Americans and others in the “white western advanced world.”
Brazil is a very racist country but it takes many different forms than in the US-tho of course basic realities of discrimination are similar.
But how can you explain a culture that contains black people like an old boyfriend of mine – very active in Afro-Brazilian culture and anti-racist work, very knowlegeable & informed about the history of anti-racist movements in the US and elsewhere – but who liked me to call him (as an intimate term of affection) “meu neginho” while he called me “minha branca?” When I pointed out how this would be viewed if we lived in the US, he couldn’t understand it. In the favelas people of all colors call out to each other by shouting “oi, negao!” and similar terms for white people exist. “Moreno”, “mulatto” etc are all often used.
What gets more complex is that these terms are also used within families between people who love each other deeply.
What gets even more complex is that the same terms are often used by white people who are indeed openly racist.
I’ve often been called “branca” in Brazil by people of all colors & never have felt offended because I know no offense was intended. Gradations in color also matter, by the way.
It’s a really difficult thing to translate into the Anglo world – and I’ve given up trying.
@Sandra thanks for your honesty. You “giving up” is exactly what’s most terrifying to me – how people with different and perhaps superior discourses on race can get silenced by a dominant and non-reflexive narrative.
@Elliott true, but it’s a very contextual thing that you can’t translate into simple words. You have to live it. Americans, Brits who live in Brazil for yrs and really internalize the language manage to get to a point where they get it. There are just no easy words, analogies, expressions I can use to translate it effectively–tho certainly some folks are open to hearing it.
@Sandra there’s a definitely a different vibe and cultural background and just plain feeling in other multiracial countries, Mexico included – but I still harbor hope that that attitude can somehow open eyes in other parts. Paint me naive.
What strikes me as particularly interesting is that the West (gross generalization I know) seems to have significant trouble with the concept that context in many ways is everything. A phrase that can sound hateful out of context may never have been interpreted that way by the person it was directed to. Moreover there seems to be an issue with translation. Words that are offensive when translated in to English might not be offensive in whatever language they initially spoken in.
All that said, there does need to be a better attempt to address bigoted language choices by footballers and fans. The respective FA’s need to step up and condemn hateful language. This would require addressing the issue of racialism as opposed to putting out a statement with a sound bite of “we are disappointed and this has no place in the game” along with a match ban and a fine. There are many ways to do this including and not limited to getting players to make a statement publicly that they don’t approve of chants etc. Clubs can and should root out the people who bring racial hate into a stadium, as that is decidedly different than a rivalry. It requires action, but it also requires and understanding of the nuances of language. I’m not certain that the shades of gray can be adequately addressed as long as righteous indignation and offense are the standard response rather than discourse and actual change.
@Julia very well put. It’s a very delicate balance – I’m glad the FA is taking all these epithet allegations seriously, but, on the other hand, how do these formal dispute resolution systems impede or block informal resolution like a simple meeting and speaking. I was very impressed by Cesc that he reached out to Kanoute to explain himself. We don’t know what was said, but he either 1) Explained a misunderstanding or 2) Apologized. Or maybe both. Regardless, his actions show empathy for how a black person (or anyone) would rightly feel hurt if they heard or thought they heard a racist remark. That’s what I’m not seeing in the respective England situations – any empathy or dialogue. Then again, maybe that’s just the nature of the individual folks involved.
Elliot, I’ll admit I haven’t followed any of this beyond the headlines, but did anyone actually compare the players to George Wallace? I don’t think Thierry was going for that exactly. And stating the obvious, yeah, people can say do racist things and not be the anti-Christ, should that require stating? I think I understand your point, context of language of matters, state of mind matters too, and the language we use to discuss these racism is frequently reductive, it’s own dead end and simplistic. And yet, not being privy to racism discussions in non-English speaking countries except by certain personal avenues, I actually find it heartening that it’s discussed at all, if even in simplistic terms. That it requires culture-clash on foreign soil for it to percolate up is limiting, ultimately, but what is the state of the discussion in more homogenous societies otherwise? That’s not rhetorical, I don’t know…I assume Uruguay has some amount of discussions about those who are ethnically indigenous, I assume Spain has some discussions beyond the “We aren’t racist for slanting our eyes”-type though weirdly that feels like it comes up a lot–into English language media.
If I want to fall back on personal reaction and earlier arguments and perceived arguments, for all its simplicity, I’ve gotten into discussions that circled around “this language is limiting” that felt more like dodging a discussions of racism than an actual articulation of difference. I don’t know what the equivalent of the American Civil Rights Movement, say, is in Brazil–which is lamentable to me, since I’m Brazilian born, but culturally American as my family moved to the US when I was quite young, and ethnically Asian, so not in either countries main narrative–but the racial words is fraught in America. We have our own context. For what it’s worth, Sandra, I’ve completely had that conversation with fellow Americas, and white ones, too.
I guess I’m worried that people don’t talk about racism, the why do the particulars insult Evra so, far more than I’m worried about Anglo-racial linguistic notions. What language do you propose then?
@hcduvall at my own site, I discussed these issues in reference to our love/hate view of Balotelli – the term “racialist” has started to pop up, as opposed to simply “racist.” I also totally agree with you that more discourse is needed, not less – but my problem is that right now it’s not a dialogue or a discussion, it’s a lecture based on lip-reading. Nobody is going to admit they are a racist as long as they get grouped into a box with George Wallace. Yet if we can’t articulate our own biases and assumptions, then how can we address them?
My biggest pet peeve is probably how disingenuous some of the soccer writing has been – partisan blogs love to latch onto these issues to tear into a player they don’t like because our simplistic discourse makes it an easy win. For example, here’s a hypo – I’m a United fan and harbor some dislike for Chelsea & John Terry. My blog has dedicated zero ink to race issues, but now that he said something to Ferdinand’s brother I am all over it like white on rice. Is that really genuine? Is that really a positive discourse?
Great write up, Elliott. I’ve always had a hard time dealing with our very Anglo/American way of thinking about race. The issue is further compounded by folks who say things like “racist against French people,” a notion that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of racism (which is not to say that there aren’t other ways, i.e. xenophobia, sexism, etc., to discriminate).
As an American, I’ve found myself caught in the Anglo/American paradigm the first couple of times I traveled to Spanish speaking countries. When I heard “negro” used to refer to black people, I had a very American reaction, internally, even though I knew that it wasn’t the always used in the same way the term has been historically used in the U.S. The fact that I had those initial reflexes is evidence that my programming came from this Anglo-American paradigm your reference.
When we get beyond words (which I hope one day we can), perhaps racism starts to turn into an issue of intent, something that is much more difficult to determine and prosecute. It gets into issues of whether words are inherently good or bad, or whether words used in certain contexts by certain people are less problematic than if they were used in other contexts by others. It’s sloppy territory, but then again, it’s a complex issue that need to go beyond simplistic good/evil, black/white dichotomies, that is, if we want to address issues rather than just paper over them.
All this goes to show that these issues are so much more complex than t-shirts suggesting that we “Kick Out” X, Y, or Z. “Is John Terry/Cesc Fabregas/Luis Suarez a racist?” is a very different question than whether these players may have said something that is either racially insensitive, or something that can easily be construed by someone else from a different mind as offensive. As far as our simplistic labeling practices go, it’s a huge difference with immense, lingering implications.
Nuance is needed, but sadly, we rarely get it.
How can you be half white and half mexican? Mexican is a nationality not a race. Do you mean mestizo? White Mexicans do exist you know.
@teddy true point. Mexican is technically a nationality and I therefore am Hispanic-Caucasion on the Census. Therefore, I have never experienced racism or can even speak to racism. Hispanic-Caucasions basically run America FYI.
I appreciate the thought and sincerity that obviously went into this post, but I can’t help but feel that it gets some important things rather spectacularly wrong. First, to use the term “racist” to describe the (alleged) actions of Suarez or Fábregas is in no way to set either man on a plane of moral equivalence with more unambiguously racist individuals like, hmm… George Wallace (more on that choice of an example in a minute). Racism is not a monstrous, horrendous stain that only lurks in the souls of depraved creatures – it’s something that normal, otherwise good and loving, people do every day, routinely, mundanely, and often without thinking of it. As long as we think that it’s only “racists,” those terrible, unimaginably evil people, who do these things, we let ourselves and our neighbors off the hook for the racism that takes place all around us without comment or correction. Racism is in actions (and in inaction), not in the condition of one’s soul.
And George Wallace is actually a pretty good illustration of this principle. Ta-Nehisi Coates has often written brilliantly about this over at The Atlantic, but one particular post speaks to this in particular: Wallace “was known among blacks in Alabama (pre-governorship) as a liberal-minded judge who was especially fair on issues of race. Wallace pointedly refused to join the Dixiecrats when they walked out over Harry Truman’s overtures toward segregation. In 1958, Wallace ran for governor with the backing of the NAACP and spoke out against the Klan. But he lost to the Klan’s candidate, John Malcolm Patterson. Wallace then switched and a staunch segregationist, and subsequently won his bid for governor.”
Coates then quotes Wallace: “You know, I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about niggers, and they stomped the floor.” (link below)
Whether Wallace was or wasn’t a “racist” is beside the point. The impact of his actions is clear.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2010/01/the-protean-politics-of-harold-ford/34103/
I think a big problem with the whole discourse is that people constantly have trouble separating racism as an act and racism as a state of being. Doing or saying something racist does not necessarily make you “a racist” and likewise not everything that “a racist” does is a racist act. You can sing along to Dr. Dre songs and not be George Wallace. When George Wallace snored I doubt he snored racistly. But no one seems to see things that way. So whenever you say to someone “That was racist” their response is “But I’m not a racist.” It’s very annoying.
@Zak great points about racism and Wallace. I wish I could say that your coherent reasoning and varied treating of that term was abundant.
I don’t really want to get into a historical debate about Wallace, but the whole political expediency/moral failing debate has always intrigued me – doesn’t his later change in values to get elected arguably make him worse and cause us to cast doubt on his earlier stances as dubious/disingenuous?
@Andy so we’re talking hate the sin, not the sinner? Intriguing. I’m very interested at how this gray scale of racism is developing – so Suarez may harbor societal prejudices and is 1/10 racist but his remark to Evra was 6/10 racist. So do we crucify him or just stone his family members?
Elliott, you have written an eloquent piece. More than that, your dutiful response to every comment, minute or otherwise, is what sets this apart. Without this action, your article would only be lip-service to the dialogue you are encouraging. It is appreciated.
@DeiJavu
“Why did that word pop into their head when they were upset?”
You suggest that they chose those words to highlight their superiority to their targets. I wonder if it has less to do with that and more to do with the goal of insults – to inflict pain. For instance, if something calls me a white shit, I might get upset about the “shit” part but I am not going to get upset about the “white” part even if they think that they are superior to me for having some other skin color. It is my experience that people will seize upon any physical or mental characteristic that can cause the recipient of the insult pain – skin, hair, accent, intelligence etc.
As a side note, going back to the monkey debate & Spanish football, this past Saturday before the Barcelona-Mallorca match started, Ray Hudson (the commentator for GolTV) referred to a young Barcelona supporter (who appeared to be white) as a little monkey. There was no outrage nor should there have been. Context and history do matter.
“[...] two strands emerge: (1) People who argue for a post-racial world of equality that is color-blind, and (2) People who argue for a world of equality that accepts differences as inherent and of value.”
I’ve never heard anyone give the first of these arguments unless they were stupid, naive, or spewing basic notions so that children could understand. Of course, the argument isn’t really an argument so much as the politically correct filtered remnants of an idea about the social value of race ….
Regardless, the actual idea revolves around the notion that “race” is an artificial categorization of people based on arbitrary characteristics (skin color, similar physical characteristics, etc.). Setting aside this artificial categorization is the thrust of considering the world to be “post-racial.” [i.e. "race" doesn't exist. ergo, we shouldn't categorize people into "races." Instead, we should consider everyone human beings with varying shades of skin color, which then provides a common basis for equality.]
No one (at least no one that’s not stupid or naive) suggests that people should ignore the bare fact that some people have brown skin while others have tan skin (“world [...] that is color-blind”). Rather, the idea here is that the skin color of a human being has no essential “value” – negative or positive – which can be celebrated, accepted, appreciated, etc. as an actual “difference” or distinction between persons. [i.e. brown skin and tan skin people are the same. The distinction in their skin color is no more real or meaningful than if one had blonde hair while the other had red.] This idea is not “cultural imperialism,” nor does it fail to “agree” upon or “articulate the basics.” Rather it says, “sure, you have lighter skin than someone with darker skin … so?”
“Yet behind this effort to stamp out linguistic traces of race lies a very questionable belief: race can be separated from identity. I side with the second camp and I’d like to see a multicultural US where we accept differences as a part of identity and of value. [...] Was being black a key facet to the brilliant music of John Coltrane or Michael Jackson?”
The response here is that actually possessing the physical characteristic of having brown skin, does nothing to alter self-identity and carries no “value.” That is “being black” – in and of itself – was not “a key facet” to the music of Coltrane or Jackson. Instead, it was the negative value ascribed to “being black” by society at large. You are conflating the significance of actually, physically “being black” and having black skin in a society that created artificial categories called “races,” ranked them, and treats similar persons differently based on which arbitrary physical characteristics force them into one category or another. The latter is a cultural or societal influence based on ideas that should have long been discarded … without that baggage, your “race” – i.e. the shade of your skin and possession of other physical attributes – means about as much as whether you have blonde, brown, or red hair.
@Shavit first, bravo for having the courage to defend the premise behind the first group.
In regards to your first point, where is this magical “society free” universe from which we can say “objectively” that race has no value? Will you take me there? Does it involve a transporter? I hold out hopes that either really cool robots or even cooler aliens, or alien robots, can unite humanity and help us realize that we’re all sacks of skin & bones, but your argument’s premise is also its conclusion. You begin by stating that race has no value, then conclude triumphantly that it has no value. Your second point is based on the same circular argument.
What really concerns me about this style of argument is how one group (with bigger guns & ships) and total self-belief in their circular premises can go and tell other groups that their cherished local identities, be it race, gender, or nationality, is worthless and should be given up to make way for smallpox, McDonalds, or BOTH!
I just have to answer your circular argument with my own – I am right because I am right! Endgame FTW!
@Ben I see your point and agree that context and history matter. My concern is projecting our own twisted Anglo history onto an immigrant to create a context which may not exist. I also am not touching RM or Barca with a ten foot pole.
@elliott The sites that have that sort of response aren’t the sort that I venture for soccer writing, let alone a discussion of cultures and racism when it intersects. I guess I’m somewhat struggling with the resigned tone of this discussion that I’m getting, that language is limited and there is a dead end. I suppose because I wouldn’t expect it, I consider it marvel that a discussion would arise from such an incident, rather than lament that it doesn’t.
I have been called “nego” in the south of brazil even though I have white skin. ‘Nego’ is a term of endearment that means ‘pal’ or ‘friend’.
I certainly didn’t take any offense by it. I found it kind of amusing.
@Miriti I am ethnically east Asian, and obviously so…so in Brazil children have run up to me innocently asking if I was Japanese (that group being especially big in Sao Paulo where my family resides), and any words they knew and chanting any words they knew. In Italy (where Nakata was playing at the time), not so innocently doing the same and spitting in my general direction (unless I culturally misread, and spitting is a sort of compliment). Complicated as social interaction is, its not always hard to read, and I admit that as much as I would prefer there to be more nuance in discussions, there’s a place for blunt objects like the “kick out” campaign. I mean, I used to think those “Truth” anti-smoking campaign was silly shock therapy, but apparently it was one of the most successful anti-smoking campaign used in the US in years. Slogans on T-shirts seem silly, but for some its the ubiquity or the jolt that gets to them. For now we need to build discussions on top of overt, simplistic discussions, or otherwise, I fear/think, the topics never come up at all.
@hcduvall very fair points – in terms of audience, these simple slogans are more targeted towards youth and can be very effective. I also share your aversion to some of the partisan soccer writing out there.
In terms of resignation, I’m doing my best to imagine a world and develop linguistic nuances for adults to discuss race. I like the term racialist. I heard it from a very smart professor at a lecture a year ago. This is definitely similar to my trafficking post a few months back – once we have a good bead on the contours of a problem and can agree on worthwhile values, then we can go nuts & bolts problem-solving into the future.
Also, and this may make little sense, but just opening Anglo eyes to the concept of Anglo as an ethnicity, group, etc, with its own values, history, nuances, etc is important. Especially that it not be done in a KKK way. Once we realize that our own glasses are always tinted in some way, we can do our best to adjust for blindspots and our biases the best we can.
“first, bravo for having the courage to defend the premise behind the first group.”
It doesn’t take courage to point out where someone has misrepresented an argument. It apparently does to recognize that one has misrepresented an argument, and then to actually respond to it without mocking and dodging the point.
“where is this magical “society free” universe from which we can say “objectively” that race has no value?”
First, no one – especially me – claimed that there was a “magical ‘society free’ universe.” Nor does the argument require that their be a “magical ‘society free’ universe.” The argument serves as a critique on the idea underpinning the concept of race. As in, “hey guys, this idea of “race” only holds up if we divide people up based on arbitrary physical attributes and provide these categories with meaning by using gross generalizations and stereotypes about what people with those arbitrary physical attributes are like … we should cut that out.”
Second, it’s not circular. Follow the logic:
(1) a “race” is one of the major divisions of humankind, each having distinct physical characteristics.
(2) to ascribe value to race the “distinct physical characteristics” must ascribe some value to or aptly describe the particular values of persons within one of these divisions of humankind.
(3) the “distinct physical characteristics” have no special significance in relation to other physical characteristics.
(4) ergo, because the distinct physical characteristics do not have have inherent, unique value, or ascribe value to the persons possessing them, the concept of “race” itself has no value.
Of course on the flip side, the argument you apparently support might go something like this:
—– a bunch of people a long time ago came up with the notion that certain groups of people were “different” because they had darker skin. They ascribed value to that difference, ranking the two groups and giving them names. The values they placed were ‘white people are smarter, more creative, and more industrious’ while the ‘brown people are good at working hard in the sun, but cannot understand basic concepts.’ Of course, they were wrong then, because obviously saying ‘brown people are good at working hard in the sun, but cannot understand basic concepts’ is racist bullshit to be left in the past. But for no real reason, we’ll keep their foundation of asinine categories based on skin color even though they actually provide no rational understanding of or connection to the people they purport to describe. We’ll do this despite having to use gross generalizations and stereotypes based in ignorance and delusion to provide the categories with meaning just like the people before us.
Of course, let’s give this a test … name me some of these values that a person’s “race” (not their culture, experience, ethnicity, etc.) actually bestows upon them. In the alternative, tell me exactly what a person’s “race” actually describes about a particular person within that “race.” In other words, tell me why “race” is a good categorization of people.
Third, the second point was a response to you comment that race cannot be separated from identity. Again, it wasn’t circular. I was suggesting that what you consider to be the effect of “race” is really the effect of a culture/society/etc. that utilizes a concept void of meaning to describe and rank the value of persons.
“What really concerns me about this style of argument is how one group (with bigger guns & ships) and total self-belief in their circular premises can go and tell other groups that their cherished local identities, be it race, gender, or nationality, is worthless and should be given up to make way for smallpox, McDonalds, or BOTH!”
What concerns me is that the people who are the first to assume that all ____ (americans? europeans? just plain old white people? who is the “group”?) want to cross an ocean and subjugate people because they happen to be speaking. I’d rather it be assumed that when I speak, despite being white, holding american citizenship, and discussing an idea with which you disagree, I nonetheless: (1) am just having a conversation; (2) do not deserve to be saddled with the baggage, viewpoints, or actions of other people that happen to match my physical appearance or citizenship; and (3) am, in fact, actually not the boogeyman.
edit: What concerns me are the people who assume that all ____ (americans? europeans? just plain old white people? who is the “group”?) want to cross an ocean and subjugate people just because they happen to be speaking.
@Shavit you’ve just basically re-written your circular argument into four subsections. I will do the same. I am right because I am right because I am right because I am right.
I can respect your goal – to eradicate discrimination by saying there are no differences or they are not important, but here’s a problem – what happens if the “pinnacle of knowledge”, the mapping of the human genome, shows “material” differences between the races? If we don’t discriminate because we’re not different, but then we’re different, then….crap!
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, can’t we break down divisions to show no differences between humans and animals and other carbon-based lifeforms? Why is that difference material? Should the players and cops who chased that dog on the field in a recent South American game have been red-carded? Should we stop eating meat? But what about science that shows plants emit high level frequency sounds when they are uprooted or “killed” in a sense? Is death by starvation the only ethical existence?
Once again, I dig your goal, but the premise that differences either don’t exist or aren’t important, is worrisome. Until the robot-aliens start beating the all Earth XI in a few millenia, I don’t give it much currency as a practical or possible alternative.
Elliott, thanks for writing this defense of ‘racialism’ v. racism, and for moderating this ebullient readership (I’d not have the experience nor the strength to keep everything on target. . .). I don’t think it’s pointless to remark, once again, what this piece really does: showing how disingenuous teams and managers are in handling the issue, and reminding how rage plays a part in football taunting. In my site, I wrote a somewhat similar piece on Homeric blame-words and how a cruder kind of heroism demands an inevitable nostalgia for the paladins of a previous generation.
I am Italian, married to an African-American, and sometimes, dining below the Mason-Dixon Line or throwing dinners with a Lower Manhattan population generates blunders that go beyond the false cognates. I have witnessed construction workers, near the World Trade Center, resorting to English to bridge deep-lying differences of their respective Hispanic languages; I have seen forklift operators mocking each other, while on the job, for either “wearing PR shoes” or “being black and enjoining the Welfare package just a little bit too much”. Also, when I was back in St. Louis teaching literature, I saw an exhibit on race at the Historical Society, where they interviewed an Indian mascot, who actually had a tepee near a football stadium and performed a war dance every time a home team player hit a home run. As far as I am able to ascertain, the Redskins of Washington fought a suit for years against the injurious label–one that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary places in the company of “dago”–and in 2009 the Supreme Court decided in favor of the normal trademark protection. And here lies one of the problems. Are we going to support teams that re-direct every single dollar of their revenue to continue beyond limits a locker-room solidarity? Or, like the Native Americans who took offense at the name Redskins, are we going to move some opposition to the flamboyant showmen who run our favorite franchise?
@elliott You’ll tackle race/racism/racialism but not Barca & Real Madrid?
“you’ve just basically re-written your circular argument into four subsections. I will do the same. I am right because I am right because I am right because I am right.”
wow, you’re a child.
“I can respect your goal – to eradicate discrimination by saying there are no differences or they are not important, but here’s a problem – what happens if the “pinnacle of knowledge”, the mapping of the human genome, shows “material” differences between the races?”
My goal was to clear up a misrepresentation of an idea that critiques the concept of race. But really, you’re argument … well, no you haven’t actually given an argument … you’ve just said race is important because you want it to be and supported it with a wholly hypothetical ‘what if?’
But please tell me, elliot, will science also be able to link other physical attributes to a meaningful and “material difference” in human beings? Or is this just limited to skin color?
“Or, at the other end of the spectrum, can’t we break down divisions to show no differences between humans and animals and other carbon-based lifeforms? Why is that difference material?”
Wow, more conceptual confusion. “species” and “race” are two different things. [and do I really need to explain to you how a cross-species comparison is different than comparing people with different physical attributes? Do I actually need to point out the many, varied, meaningful, and obvious distinctions that separate humans and dogs? Do you actually suggest (really, in any way shape or form) that a dog is to a human as a black human is to a white human? Are you fucking kidding me?] Is this where you think the human genome project is heading – to a division of human “races” into “species” – if so, the idea has clearly and unequivocally been rebuked? (i’m seriously at a loss how the human genome project, dogs, people and “race” come together in a cogent argument.)
“Once again, I dig your goal, but the premise that differences either don’t exist or aren’t important, is worrisome.”
It’s worrisome that you write for one of my favorite blogs. More to the point, it’s worrisome that you can’t provide a single reason why two otherwise similar people should be considered essentially or materially different because of their skin color. So too, it’s worrisome that you haven’t given a single rational connection between a person’s skin color/physical attributes and their nature, personality, talents, whatever. But it’s doubly worrisome that you blindly believe that “race” actually is important, yet (1) cannot provide a reason why, but still (2) refuse to question the fundamental premise of the concept.
But really, it’s entirely troubling and worrisome to hear someone concede
the racist’s logic. If you can complete and believe in any argument that takes the form “Person X has brown skin. People with brown skin are ______. Therefore person X is ______,” there are serious problems in your thought process.
@Shavit Ha. Ad hominem to boot!
Look, we agree that many aspects of identity are socially constructed,yet here is your dilemma – how does that make them lose value? How does that make them value-less? And how can you simply strip them away?
I bet you are the type of person who must have the last word. Have it. I am looking forward to your newest and hopefully last incarnation of the “I can see the non-socially constructed universe and it’s more beautiful than you can imagine” claim. I tried to tactfully agree to disagree and say we share goals, but at some point ad hominems make RoP look like a forum or, gasp, certain other sides I criticized in the post.
@Elliott It’s more of a strategic distinction to get people to improve themselves, which should be the goal, right? Condemning the sin rather than the sinner encourages the sinner to atone because it doesn’t threaten their sense of self. “I’m a good person who’s made a mistake and I need to make up for it” is much easier to swallow than “I’m a bad person and I need to change who I am.”
@elliott I fail to see how calling you a child is somehow worse than (1) not responding to the substance of my argument or (2) claiming that I’m advancing an argument that necessarily leads to the subjugation and murder of other people. but hey … whatever.
But no, “agree to disagree” isn’t quite good enough. You’ve claimed that you are peeved by the knee jerk reaction of labeling someone a “racist,” which prevents honest dialogue (which I agree with) … did you not also want to have that dialogue?
“Look, we agree that many aspects of identity are socially constructed,yet here is your dilemma – how does that make them lose value? How does that make them value-less? And how can you simply strip them away?”
“Race” is an entirely flawed, useless concept that provides no meaningful description for those persons it purports to describe. How can you strip it away? Why is not better to ask whether or not we should hold on to it?
“Caucasian” – in common usage “white” – refers to a “race” of humans distinguished from other humans because they fall within an arbitrarily set parameter anthropometric measurements laid down in long discarded scientific theories. The divisions of the “Caucasoid” race are Aryan, Semitic, and Hamitic. Of course, as a Jew the very notion that two things otherwise known as “human” can be divided as “aryan” and “semitic” sends chills up my spine. But merely continuing to build on bullshit distinctions thrust upon us by the past seems fairly ridiculous as well … What is the actually meaningful difference between “caucasoids” and “mongoloids”? Does it somehow change if we say “whites” and “hispanics”? Does the meaning or distinctions in the terms actually stem from cultural, ethnic, etc. differences? In which case, why say “white” and “hispanic?” Why find meaning/identity in being white? Hispanic?
I say we can strip them away because they are actually inherently value-less. Hell, most of the time (as the comments indicate) people don’t put the right name in the right category. In a post a while ago someone referred to “spanish” as a race. If I remember correctly, someone above referred to “mexican” as a race. But really, you say you are hispanic. Does that term define you? Or is that a loose categorization that places you in amongst a whole crap ton of people to which you probably have nothing in common other than … ? Better to describe you based on culture, language, nationality, etc., no?
I may well be the type of person to wish for the last word. I hope this wasn’t it. I am just responding to your questions.
@Andy great point. I couldn’t agree more. I’m just trying to walk through an example of our new linguistic nuanced approach!
@Elliott No, you didn’t “get my point”. I at no point said that the Uruguayan is to be categorised as a sinner “equal to George Wallace”. You illogically inferred that to make my point sound black/white. I don’t agree that racist language = vile racist = wrath of God: some of my best friends are racist.
What I *said* was that describing someone in racial terms (with “fire in the eyes”) is deeply offensive because the implication is that the racial category is a part of the insult. It is reductive and dismissive to a person’s being. Hold this thought.
When I was growing up in Scotland, if someone called me a “black bastard” or a “Paki bastard”, the source of my offence came from the foregrounding of racial Otherness. Even though I was technically “a bastard”, I was okay with that. Even though I was neither a “Paki”, nor “black” (being half-Afro-Caribbean, half-white; or mulatto; or brown; or whatever crude racial pigeonhole you care to choose), I was still offended because the insult was in the branding of reductive Otherness.
That’s the problem with language. It’s too crude to accurately describe the chaos of existence. People stick to the easy categories of Black, Irish, or whatever they latch on to. A Lithuanian colleague recently chastened me for identifying a customer who needed his food served as “The black guy”. “You can’t say that,” she said gravely. “It’s not a value judgement, he’s the only black guy in a room full of people,” I responded. It may as well have been “the guy in the green sweater”, but I didn’t notice what colour his top was. I also didn’t pretend to know anything about the guy’s personality, culture or abilities; nor did I imply he was in any way less of a person than me.
However, am I to be criticised for disliking the use of language that I perceive as “racist”? Again, it’s just a word: a word that means “discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of race”. Should I engage with the issue by saying “sorry, but technically speaking Suarez is racialist, not racist; let’s discuss that issue globally in dozens of languages”. Or should I say “he shouldn’t be invoking race in that manner when little kids look up to him as some kind of deity”?
Nuanced arguments about relativism have permitted atrocities.
@Thierry Ennui you’re spot on that nuanced relativist arguments have led to atrocities. But so has grouping people in the same linguistic categorical box. I definitely can see how simple labels can help to teach school children not to be utter racist. But is that our only denominator for discussion? I’d like to think that adults can and should look at these things beyond a black/white prism. Obviously, plenty of people I respect disagree, I respect your opinion, and you are entitled to call anybody you want a racist.
As a white guy married to a black woman with an adopted puerto rican child living in the deep southern states, I know that every comment must be weighed in it’s fullness of context. Folks say the most innocuous things at times and boil my blood while an errant “n” word from a country bumpkin of any race rolls off our backs as a relic of times past. Your view summarizes my feeling that we owe ourselves a firm reflection of values before we get all worked up.
@Joe as my mom said – when I married your dad, it was a big deal that we were kind of a bi-racial/white & Mexican couple. Now, you hardly see any same-race or same-ethnicity young couples anymore. Hopefully our grandkids’ generation won’t even have any idea as to what racial epithet to use to insult an opposing player! After a rough tackle or late foul, they’ll look down their nose and say “filthy…..HUMAN being.”
@Elliott
When a white person insults a white person, is that racist?
If Kanoute was white then Cesc would have called him a son of a whore. Would that be considered racist or just insulting?
@Fabian Sounds more like self-depreciating insults than racism to me.
@Fabian white people can definitely make racist comments to other white folks, just as blacks can be racist towards blacks and asians towards asians etc etc. For example, in a lot of Hispanic communities, a lot of obnoxious new rich Hispanics will refer to working class immigrants as wetbacks, mojados, etc, but those terms’ superficial neutrality masks racist undertones – that those people are the “wrong kind” of Hispanic and below the other Hispanics.
I don’t really know the cultural background about “son of a whore”, but a superficially neutral term “babymama” which basically refers to the same concept has an association with the black community more so than the white or Hispanic or Asian community in the US. If that word were to come from my mouth, it would be both awkward sounding and probably considerably more offensive.
In every game of soccer there will be players that go at each other…whether trying to egg someone one, or after being egged on. Either way, racial slurs can come out because this generally gets people upset. So if you are mad at someone, then make a racial slur and you will generally get their attention. So it sounds like that is what Suarez did to Evra; however, it doesn’t bother me because Evra has surely done it to many players before as well.
There is no racism on the 1st soccer social network that launched a few days ago: http://www.thefootballsocialclub.com check it out
Eusebio on Alan, the (black) Braga winger who recently accused Benfica midfielder Javi Garcia of being a racist due to an alleged comment the Spaniard made during their teams’ encounter last week:
“Alan is stupid. He’s said that Javi called him ‘black’ – well, he, in fact, is. I’ve been called ‘black’ so many times that, frankly, I don’t care. If people call me ‘black’, it’s because I am. I would be offended if they called me ‘white’, because I’m not. And anyway, he might not even have said it – knowing Javi as I do, he probably didn’t. But in either case, stupid…”
@anon Yet this leads to the second part of any discussion on language, the cultural component & surrounding circumstances. For example, in Kansas, I’ve heard many Anglo people use the term “Mexican” as a derogatory adjective/noun. While literally it’s true, “that guy was a Mexican”, the intonation makes the not so subtle implication that being of Mexican ancestry &/or nationality is a negative.
I can dig what Eusebio is doing – trying to pull the carpet out from the offender’s feet and stripping negative connotations from racial terms. This is similar to LGBT folk and the term “queer.” However, people can use superficially “neutral” terms as swords & shields to perpetuate racism.
http://www.illdoctrine.com/2008/07/how_to_tell_people_they_sound.html
This is a view Ive tried to get across since these events. None of my friends actually came close to calling me my name when I lived in Spain — “negro” was the order of the day based on the fact that I was generally darker than them. As you said, an observation which was perfectly harmless but would get heads turning here.
Racism, generally, is borne out of ignorance of other cultures and the people that belong to them. That this same ignorance is behind the vilification of Suarez and Fabregas as racists is something I find, very sadly, most ironic.
Relevant:
The “four little blackies”, by Thiago Alcantara: http://twitter.com/#!/Thi_Alcantara91/status/148000842459529216/photo/1