In the wake of the Luis Suarez and Diane Abbott race rows, Shamik Das looks at the tribal backing received from their supporters, despite being in the wrong.
Another day, another story about racism, another race row – with Diane Abbott in the spotlight today for her offensive remarks about how “white people love playing ‘divide and rule'”. She has since deleted the tweet and issued an apology, not for the comments themselves but “for any offence caused” – the classic non-apology.
Yet it is Labour’s slow response (though the party did at least, belatedly, issue a condemnation, albeit not as promptly or sternly as Nick Clegg), and moreover the response of Labour supporters and left-wingers, who have rallied to Abbott’s defence, that will bemuse, frustrate and raise as many questions about judgement. On Twitter, Facebook and in blogs, there has been a closing of ranks, an inability to see any wrong, and attacks on those criticising Abbott.
Remind you of anything? The tribal, unswerving allegiances and loyalty are straight out of the Liverpool “back ’em at all costs, it’s us v them” mentality that saw the club, manager and supporters back Luis Suarez to the hilt during the recent racism row following his clash with Patrice Evra, right up to Suarez’s eventual “if it offends anyone then I want to apologise for that” semi-contrition last night.
The Abbott and Suarez cases are of course not identical, and Ed Miliband’s response is better than that of Kenny Dalgliesh, but the reaction of many Labour supporters echoes that of the die-hard Liverpool fans.
As Times football editor Tony Evans wrote (£) of the blindly-loyal Liverpool fans:
“Luis Suárez, Liverpool Football Club and legions of their fans seem bewildered that the word negrito directed at a black man in the course of an argument would lead the individual concerned to assume that he had been racially abused…
“So this unedifying spat continues with Liverpool supporters – almost to a man – behind Suárez.
“It is embarrassing. Is it not possible for Liverpool fans to have some empathy with Evra? To see that he felt racially abused? Seemingly not in the pathetically tribal world of football, where basic decencies are thrown out the window and the “my club right or wrong” ethic prevails.”
The same sentiments of “embarrassing” and “pathetically tribal” could be applied to those unreservedly backing Abbott.
For the Liverpool and Labour/lefty loyalists, the next time one of their own is offended, or someone from an opposing team offends them, they will express outrage, of that you can be sure; their non-condemnatory response to the offence caused by Suarez and Abbott, however, lessens the impact, the authority, the effectiveness those future howls of outrage will have.
See also:
• “Sorry if you were offended” does not cut it, Diane – Daniel Elton, January 5th 2012
• Stephen Lawrence: The legacy that lives on, the hope, the dreams of a better future – Shamik Das, January 4th 2012
• Clegg needs to turn anger at dugout discrimination into action – Shamik Das, November 24th 2011
• Has racism returned to football? – Shamik Das, October 25th 2011
• All eyes on Barcelona as racism rears its ugly head again – Shamik Das, May 3rd 2011
60 Responses to “Liverpool fans backing Suarez, Lefties backing Abbott… When tribalism trumps reason”
Philip
From @leftfootfwd http://t.co/M5WkriUm Attempt to identify "tribalist" defence of Abbott with defence of Suarez. Fucking liberals.
poorbastardmarvin
MT @Labour_Partisan: From @leftfootfwd http://t.co/WLfSiCMx << Excellent piece on tribalist defence of racism re Diane Abbott
Steve Bennett
There is a difference between black men calling each other ‘N***r and a white man using the word to wind up a black man in an argument on a football field and then claiming he was being friendly, the use of that Evra video to defend Suarez is as bad as the attempts to smear Evra that were made in the aggressive defence of SUAREZ.
Anonymous
What Suarez said was racist, no ifs, no buts, no excuses. Yet its clear that the author above hasnt read the 115 page FA report. Firstly he didnt use the word negrito at all (this was extensively reported before the FA published the report) he used the word negro, which he admitted.
Secondly, Evra started the exchange by confronting Suarez, called his sister a ‘cunt’, threatened to punch Suarez more than once and also racially abused Suarez (Sudamericano / sudaca). Yet as FA committee made clear in the 115 page document the remit of the committee looking at matter was restricted only to the complaint of Evra and not to any complaint against Evra – or for that matter did the same committee take into account Evra’s actions and language as mitigation for what Suarez said to him. So lets not kid ourselves that Evra is some form of blameless victim here.
However, the real issue is if JT is found guilty in his criminal charge of using racisst language to Anton Ferdinand, then his maximum penalty is a £2500 fine.
Suarez received 16 times this as a fine in his civil case (and had to pay costs) than JT can receive in a criminal case. The same criminal case cannot ban JT either. It doesnt matter whether JT is found guilty or not, and I have no opinion either way, the fact remains his maximum punishment is just 6.25% of the fine Suarez received – a fine which is wholly inadequate in any case.
The FA punishment of Suarez needs to be seen in the light of what the criminal courts can do to JT.
I also presume the author hasnt seen the Evra videos, which were available online well ahead of the Liverpool match, in which he calls Hasselbaink and Lampard ‘Nigger’ – As I said earlier Evra is not some blameless victim here.
In summary, nothing wrong or harsh with 8 match ban for Suarez lets stamp racism out of football and out of as much of life as we can. Yet any harsh punishment is ONLY acceptable if it is administered equally to all and the Suarez case is not an example of that in any way at all.
Anonymous
What Suarez said was racist, no ifs, no buts, no excuses. Yet its clear that the author above hasnt read the 115 page FA report. Firstly he didnt use the word negrito at all (this was extensively reported before the FA published the report) he used the word negro, which he admitted.
Secondly, Evra started the exchange by confronting Suarez, called his sister a ‘cunt’, threatened to punch Suarez more than once and also racially abused Suarez (Sudamericano / sudaca). Yet as FA committee made clear in the 115 page document the remit of the committee looking at matter was restricted only to the complaint of Evra and not to any complaint against Evra – or for that matter did the same committee take into account Evra’s actions and language as mitigation for what Suarez said to him. So lets not kid ourselves that Evra is some form of blameless victim here.
However, the real issue is if JT is found guilty in his criminal charge of using racisst language to Anton Ferdinand, then his maximum penalty is a £2500 fine.
Suarez received 16 times this as a fine in his civil case (and had to pay costs) than JT can receive in a criminal case. The same criminal case cannot ban JT either. It doesnt matter whether JT is found guilty or not, and I have no opinion either way, the fact remains his maximum punishment is just 6.25% of the fine Suarez received – a fine which is wholly inadequate in any case.
The FA punishment of Suarez needs to be seen in the light of what the criminal courts can do to JT.
I also presume the author hasnt seen the Evra videos, which were available online well ahead of the Liverpool match, in which he calls Hasselbaink and Lampard ‘Nigger’ – As I said earlier Evra is not some blameless victim here.
In summary, nothing wrong or harsh with 8 match ban for Suarez lets stamp racism out of football and out of as much of life as we can. Yet any harsh punishment is ONLY acceptable if it is administered equally to all and the Suarez case is not an example of that in any way at all.