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”
Jim
I think you’re in danger of making some rather sweeping generalisations of your own here. I’m particularly irked by the claim that Liverpool fans in general have all reacted in an unthinkingly partisan way. The Liverpool fans I have spoken to who are concerned about this have all raised legitimate questions about the process followed, which seems to have fallen well below the proper standards of justice. Suarez has been found guilty based on the evidence of one person alone, unsupported by evidence from anyone else. Evra said at the time that Suarez called him a particular word at least ten times, only to subsequently change his mind on both points. Despite this the FA decided to accept his testimony as being more ‘consistent’, perhaps because (according to reports in the Telegraph) he met the FA three times in advance of the hearing during which he was allowed to align his evidence with the video footage, none of which was allowed to Suarez. People would rightly be very angry if this happened in a criminal trial, so I’m not sure why you jump to the conclusion that it’s fine and dandy in this case.
Jim
I think you’re in danger of making some rather sweeping generalisations of your own here. I’m particularly irked by the claim that Liverpool fans in general have all reacted in an unthinkingly partisan way. The Liverpool fans I have spoken to who are concerned about this have all raised legitimate questions about the process followed, which seems to have fallen well below the proper standards of justice. Suarez has been found guilty based on the evidence of one person alone, unsupported by evidence from anyone else. Evra said at the time that Suarez called him a particular word at least ten times, only to subsequently change his mind on both points. Despite this the FA decided to accept his testimony as being more ‘consistent’, perhaps because (according to reports in the Telegraph) he met the FA three times in advance of the hearing during which he was allowed to align his evidence with the video footage, none of which was allowed to Suarez. People would rightly be very angry if this happened in a criminal trial, so I’m not sure why you jump to the conclusion that it’s fine and dandy in this case.
Ed's Talking Balls
Both are to be condemned, albeit that at the very least Suarez can cite the “context” excuse with greater justification: he comes from a foreign country, has only lived here a short time and doesn’t speak fluent English. I don’t accept this excuse and neither does the FA, but his appeals to “context” make more sense than those of a Cambridge-educated (not that it shows in her words or deeds…) MP.
Abbott is a disgusting hypocrite and this latest outburst shouldn’t surprise anyone. Let’s not forget that this avowed critic of private education sent her own child to a school where the vast majority of parents could never afford to send their children. Let’s also not forget her comment that ‘West Indian mothers will go the wall for their kids’, the obvious implication of which was not missed by Andrew Neil. Her foot is permanently lodged in her mouth.
I admit that I don’t know whether Labour elects or selects its shadow cabinet. If the former, then it shows shocking judgment on the part of those who voted. If the latter, it speaks volumes for Miliband’s judgment. Whichever, I would hope that there is a mechanism in place to remove such an odious piece of work from her role. Happily, there is a mechanism to remove her from public office altogether: I hope the people of Hackney will see sense but, I’m afraid, I have my doubts.
Ed's Talking Balls
Both are to be condemned, albeit that at the very least Suarez can cite the “context” excuse with greater justification: he comes from a foreign country, has only lived here a short time and doesn’t speak fluent English. I don’t accept this excuse and neither does the FA, but his appeals to “context” make more sense than those of a Cambridge-educated (not that it shows in her words or deeds…) MP.
Abbott is a disgusting hypocrite and this latest outburst shouldn’t surprise anyone. Let’s not forget that this avowed critic of private education sent her own child to a school where the vast majority of parents could never afford to send their children. Let’s also not forget her comment that ‘West Indian mothers will go the wall for their kids’, the obvious implication of which was not missed by Andrew Neil. Her foot is permanently lodged in her mouth.
I admit that I don’t know whether Labour elects or selects its shadow cabinet. If the former, then it shows shocking judgment on the part of those who voted. If the latter, it speaks volumes for Miliband’s judgment. Whichever, I would hope that there is a mechanism in place to remove such an odious piece of work from her role. Happily, there is a mechanism to remove her from public office altogether: I hope the people of Hackney will see sense but, I’m afraid, I have my doubts.
Ed's Talking Balls
Both are to be condemned, albeit that at the very least Suarez can cite the “context” excuse with greater justification: he comes from a foreign country, has only lived here a short time and doesn’t speak fluent English. I don’t accept this excuse and neither does the FA, but his appeals to “context” make more sense than those of a Cambridge-educated (not that it shows in her words or deeds…) MP.
Abbott is a disgusting hypocrite and this latest outburst shouldn’t surprise anyone. Let’s not forget that this avowed critic of private education sent her own child to a school where the vast majority of parents could never afford to send their children. Let’s also not forget her comment that ‘West Indian mothers will go the wall for their kids’, the obvious implication of which was not missed by Andrew Neil. Her foot is permanently lodged in her mouth.
I admit that I don’t know whether Labour elects or selects its shadow cabinet. If the former, then it shows shocking judgment on the part of those who voted. If the latter, it speaks volumes for Miliband’s judgment. Whichever, I would hope that there is a mechanism in place to remove such an odious piece of work from her role. Happily, there is a mechanism to remove her from public office altogether: I hope the people of Hackney will see sense but, I’m afraid, I have my doubts.