Liverpool fans backing Suarez, Lefties backing Abbott… When tribalism trumps reason

Tony Blair never apologised for what he did to Iraq

There is a difference between name-calling, you can substitute any epithet into Suarez’s insults, baldy, fatty etc, and hardcore racism which seeks to define the characteristics of an entire race in a denigrating way.

Abbott’s offence was much greater.

I’m not condemning it because I didn’t find it offensive. Substitute white for capitalist though and I’d be in active agreement.

I don’t think that Abbott’s statement was racist for reasons that I set out here (http://600transformer.blogspot.com/2012/01/diane-abbott-idiot-maybe-but-not-racist.html) but I do think that it was ill-advised because it has clearly prejudiced undertones and for those reasons a proper apology is called for. It is clear that the Tory MP is making the most of this for purely party political reasons – his reference to ‘the wider English population’ is especially sickening, but sadly that seems to be part and parcel of Westminister politics these days. One reason why it has lost touch with – how shall I say? – the wider English population.

Liverpool fans backing Luis Suarez, Lefties backing Diane Abbott… When tribalism trumps reason: http://t.co/DKc9lvP8 by @ShamikDas

Liverpool fans backing Luis Suarez, Lefties backing Diane Abbott… When tribalism trumps reason: http://t.co/DKc9lvP8 by @ShamikDas

I think sometimes we jump quickly to judgement which is to be expected in this 24hr media environment. I think sometimes taking a bit of time to consider the context and the limitations of something like twitter may be useful. Diane was clearly trying to make a point in 140 characters that clearly led to her using shorthand which may have been understood by those she was communicating with but out of context it clearly looks out of place.

However there also may be something in the point she was clearly trying to make. This blogpost considers some of the issues. http://33revolutionsperminute.wordpress.com/

Left Foot Forward – Liverpool fans backing Suarez, Lefties backing Abbott… When tribalism trumps… http://t.co/0DzNw6Aw

I’m sure when you find the video on you tube about Evra shouting the same word out of his hotel room window in the 2004 champions league documentary of his team then Tony Evans will also come down just as hard on Evra and say people who were staying there could have been offended? Oh thats right, normal journos, talk about something you no nothing about then apologize for it later! How silly of me.

@shamikdas @leftfootfwd http://t.co/obnJsyHf When I read this I thought it was by Mail columnist. Outrage at words w/o considering context.

Liverpool fans backing Luis Suarez, Lefties backing Diane Abbott… When tribalism trumps reason: http://t.co/DKc9lvP8 by @ShamikDas

My thoughts on those blindly backing Luis Suarez and Diane Abbott: When tribalism trumps reason: http://t.co/dfJOrIVT on @leftfootfwd

Well here’s another controversial comment: there are a lot of white people who are uncomfortable with how time after time only they are portrayed as being racist. Is this why so many people have jumped ‘feet first’ on Abbot ? Just maybe. Interesting then that you’ve compounded the error and decided to lump the lefties in with a ‘racist’.

But you’re trying to make a point about tribalism. I have read a little about the Suarez case but cutting through the hysterically opinion-infected reporting it does seem a bit iffy. Well actually a lot iffy. Perhaps a better point to make is that we are not as media savvy as we would like to think, and minority tribes with vested interests have the peculiar ‘advantage’ of a prejudice that forces them to look more closely than the media lobotomised majority tribe.

What really brings these cases together is the disturbing fact that in our desperation to be members of one big happy anti-racist tribe we have trampled over truth with a disturbingly ugly glee.

From @leftfootfwd http://t.co/M5WkriUm Attempt to identify "tribalist" defence of Abbott with defence of Suarez. Fucking liberals.

Liverpool fans backing Luis Suarez, Lefties backing Diane Abbott… When tribalism trumps reason: http://t.co/DKc9lvP8 by @ShamikDas

From @leftfootfwd http://t.co/M5WkriUm Attempt to identify "tribalist" defence of Abbott with defence of Suarez. Fucking liberals.

MT @Labour_Partisan: From @leftfootfwd http://t.co/WLfSiCMx << Excellent piece on tribalist defence of racism re Diane Abbott

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Suarez deserves what he’s got, and I think Abbat owes an appology.

Suarez deserves what he’s got, and I think Abbat owes an appology.

Suarez deserves what he’s got, and I think Abbat owes an appology.

Things white people like: leaping enthusiastically to condemn the slightest whiff of “anti-white racism”. Or why Diane Abbott shouldn’t have had to apologise.

Things white people like: leaping enthusiastically to condemn the slightest whiff of “anti-white racism”. Or why Diane Abbott shouldn’t have had to apologise.

Evra doesnt need his image smearing,he is a foul mouthed idiot and has done it himself and allowed it to be filmed, so obviously proud of it,time the press started seeing him for what he is.

Evra doesnt need his image smearing,he is a foul mouthed idiot and has done it himself and allowed it to be filmed, so obviously proud of it,time the press started seeing him for what he is.

I am Uruguayan and we do not have any racist issues with the word negro or negrito. My father call me negra or negrita in a very dear way. I think racism have not only to do with what people said in certain context with certain cultural background. It has to do also with actions. Using the Suarez punishment to show how not to be racist it is a racist act at the end.

Racism has to be tackle with sense of reflection no with hypocritical punishments with “political” agendas which do not do any help to the anti-racism cause. It contributes to it.

I am Uruguayan and we do not have any racist issues with the word negro or negrito. My father call me negra or negrita in a very dear way. I think racism have not only to do with what people said in certain context with certain cultural background. It has to do also with actions. Using the Suarez punishment to show how not to be racist it is a racist act at the end.

Racism has to be tackle with sense of reflection no with hypocritical punishments with “political” agendas which do not do any help to the anti-racism cause. It contributes to it.

I am Uruguayan and we do not have any racist issues with the word negro or negrito. My father call me negra or negrita in a very dear way. I think racism have not only to do with what people said in certain context with certain cultural background. It has to do also with actions. Using the Suarez punishment to show how not to be racist it is a racist act at the end.

Racism has to be tackle with sense of reflection no with hypocritical punishments with “political” agendas which do not do any help to the anti-racism cause. It contributes to it.

True.. by the way as far as I know Diane Abbott voted
against the Iraq war..

True.. by the way as far as I know Diane Abbott voted
against the Iraq war..

This is plain ridiculous. It’s not “lefties” backing Abbott, it’s People of Colour. Look at the way that Abbott herself was challenged by a Tory Person of Colour in the media. If that’s not “divide and conquer,” what is? Remember colonialism isn’t dead.

This is plain ridiculous. It’s not “lefties” backing Abbott, it’s People of Colour. Look at the way that Abbott herself was challenged by a Tory Person of Colour in the media. If that’s not “divide and conquer,” what is? Remember colonialism isn’t dead.

Probably the word “colour” may be a racist adjective according the FA.. I am rally worry..

Probably the word “colour” may be a racist adjective according the FA.. I am rally worry..

Probably the word “colour” may be a racist adjective according the FA.. I am rally worry..

The reason why this makes Evra look bad is that in his deposition he claimed that he found the word hard to say when asked why he hadn’t said it to the ref. The conclusion that he is a liar should by now be pretty obvious.

The reason why this makes Evra look bad is that in his deposition he claimed that he found the word hard to say when asked why he hadn’t said it to the ref. The conclusion that he is a liar should by now be pretty obvious.

@SamiraAhmedUK @bellamackie Non-condemnatory response lessens impact, authority, effectiveness of future outrage http://t.co/7PDIjwKG

You may call it tribal. If Diane had gone around the world talking to non-white audiences and used those same words, no one would have batted an eyelid. If she had said ‘all’ then she would have had objections. I’ve asked for an explanation of why her words were offensive to white people with no response.

I am not establishing an argument against your comment, I was just inspired by it to share this:
British people will never understand that in Uruguay we use “negro” or “negrito” with the same meaning as the words “buddy” or “mate” are used in English. Then yes, the word “negro”, can be used in an argument if you understand this simple linguistic matter, the same way you can call “mate” or “buddy” a complete stranger. Why is it that a word that could never be considered as endearing in your culture, can be used as a friendly word in ours? Maybe that is something to ask yourselves regarding your distant relation with other races/cultures. Furthermore, the FA displayed a good amount of ethnocentrism, prejudice and arrogance, because while assuming that they understand that a friend can call another friend “negro”, they also stated that never in an argument between strangers the word could be used in the same way. False. It can be used in a very conciliatory way. Evra has the right of feeling insulted, the same way he had the right to think that the ref was giving him a yellow card because he was black, as he demanded to him. Nobody can (or should try to) control how he feels or how he perceives reality. I think that the way this whole affair has been handled by the FA, has inflamed fanatism, and has worked against what they claim they are working for, because has created sides instead of trying to resolve a conflict. Instead, has created demons (and I am talking about both players) out of an exchange between two athletes during the heat of a game, testosterone and adrenaline fueling the field. This is not the way to lessen racial tensions, this is exactly what creates them: People not understanding each other.

I am not establishing an argument against your comment, I was just inspired by it to share this:
British people will never understand that in Uruguay we use “negro” or “negrito” with the same meaning as the words “buddy” or “mate” are used in English. Then yes, the word “negro”, can be used in an argument if you understand this simple linguistic matter, the same way you can call “mate” or “buddy” a complete stranger. Why is it that a word that could never be considered as endearing in your culture, can be used as a friendly word in ours? Maybe that is something to ask yourselves regarding your distant relation with other races/cultures. Furthermore, the FA displayed a good amount of ethnocentrism, prejudice and arrogance, because while assuming that they understand that a friend can call another friend “negro”, they also stated that never in an argument between strangers the word could be used in the same way. False. It can be used in a very conciliatory way. Evra has the right of feeling insulted, the same way he had the right to think that the ref was giving him a yellow card because he was black, as he demanded to him. Nobody can (or should try to) control how he feels or how he perceives reality. I think that the way this whole affair has been handled by the FA, has inflamed fanatism, and has worked against what they claim they are working for, because has created sides instead of trying to resolve a conflict. Instead, has created demons (and I am talking about both players) out of an exchange between two athletes during the heat of a game, testosterone and adrenaline fueling the field. This is not the way to lessen racial tensions, this is exactly what creates them: People not understanding each other.

I am not establishing an argument against your comment, I was just inspired by it to share this:
British people will never understand that in Uruguay we use “negro” or “negrito” with the same meaning as the words “buddy” or “mate” are used in English. Then yes, the word “negro”, can be used in an argument if you understand this simple linguistic matter, the same way you can call “mate” or “buddy” a complete stranger. Why is it that a word that could never be considered as endearing in your culture, can be used as a friendly word in ours? Maybe that is something to ask yourselves regarding your distant relation with other races/cultures. Furthermore, the FA displayed a good amount of ethnocentrism, prejudice and arrogance, because while assuming that they understand that a friend can call another friend “negro”, they also stated that never in an argument between strangers the word could be used in the same way. False. It can be used in a very conciliatory way. Evra has the right of feeling insulted, the same way he had the right to think that the ref was giving him a yellow card because he was black, as he demanded to him. Nobody can (or should try to) control how he feels or how he perceives reality. I think that the way this whole affair has been handled by the FA, has inflamed fanatism, and has worked against what they claim they are working for, because has created sides instead of trying to resolve a conflict. Instead, has created demons (and I am talking about both players) out of an exchange between two athletes during the heat of a game, testosterone and adrenaline fueling the field. This is not the way to lessen racial tensions, this is exactly what creates them: People not understanding each other.

Let’s consider another apology we have never heard: Have England ever apologised to what it did to its colonies?

Let’s consider another apology we have never heard: Have England ever apologised to what it did to its colonies?

Let’s consider another apology we have never heard: Have England ever apologised to what it did to its colonies?

Liverpool fans backing Luis Suarez, Lefties backing Diane Abbott… When tribalism trumps reason: http://t.co/DKc9lvP8 by @ShamikDas

Liverpool fans backing Luis Suarez, Lefties backing Diane Abbott… When tribalism trumps reason: http://t.co/DKc9lvP8 by @ShamikDas

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/01/luis-suarez-diane-abbott-racism-rows-tribalism/

Although I’m not keen on generalisations and deplore your stupid comment, sentences beginning ‘things [X] people like’ should generally be ignored.

Here’s a response. She said ‘white people love…’ Even followed by the words ‘ice cream’, this would be crass. The fact that she followed it by suggested that all people of a certain skin colour love to play ‘divide and rule’ is far worse than crass. It’s bloody stupid, entirely ill-informed and, yes, offensive.

RT @leftfootfwd: Liverpool fans backing Suarez, #Lefties backing #Abbott… When #tribalism trumps reason http://t.co/c2Gpu5ah

I assume the FA are going to give Evra some some sort of ban after all in the 115 page report they accepted that Evra did say “Concha de tu hermana” which in the literal sense means “your sisters pussy”. I assume respect for women is just as important as respect for race or is it one rule for one and quite different for another.