Hooligans: An Untold Truth
Watch it and worry. Read the comments for an interesting analysis!
14 Responses to “ Hooligans: An Untold Truth ”
Leave a Reply
Usayd Networks handle Families Relief's entire 15th Anniversary marketing!
Watch it and worry. Read the comments for an interesting analysis!
I would like to see these fat white guys in a real war zone. They wouldn’t last more than 60 seconds.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. We live in a sad, sad world.
Usayd football hooliginasm died a death in the eighties because of cctv theres nothin 2 be scared of
Kieran thats like saying crime stopped because of CCTV. Absurd.
Looking at the colour of someones skin neither identifies their genetic makeup (which is far more complex), nor does it indicate if they’re a good or bad person.
In focusing on the irrelevant similarity of skin colour among the fighters Jamal has used a broad stereotype to distance himself from the thugs indefensible behaviour and regrettably falls into the trap of appearing racially intolerant.
Jamal has highlighted obesity and skin colour as a unifying factor between these thugs, but for all it’s relevance he that might as well have said “these two legged guys”.
It is their behaviour that is bad, not their colour.
They live in a sad world, we live in the world we build for each other.
Just want to make it clear that by no means do we condone racism here.
Richard makes a good point, however I think immediately what people do is they jump at the word ‘white person’ and so forth. Of course you are right, someone’s genetic make-up does not dictate any of their actions.
The point is that actually if you watch the video what do you see? I feel that Jamal has actually done nothing more then describe. For example, why are these people obese? Generally it is due to excessive drinking habits etc. If you go further, you could well say that this is one of the main causes of hooliganism in the first place!
There are people who are realistic and there are people who run away from the truth.
There’s a lot of psychological research into human cognition that discusses grouping and stereotyping: its a natural and necessary tool that helps us process the information that our senses gather every minute of every day.
Visual cues such as skin colour, physical appearance and clothing are easily used (and so also easily misused) when describing people (and groups) because everyday terms can be used where speed and simplicity are of the essence – e.g. “fat” and “white” are far more accessible to short term memory than more relevant words such as violent, hateful, immature, vindictive, etc.
In describing what he sees, Jamal’s selection of “white” as an adjective, is accurate but unfortunate (I chose that word carefully because I’m assumed there was no “provocative” intent in it’s use) because it only describes an irrelevant attribute of the group when the only important associative factor is their behaviour.
In fact my use of the word ‘white’ was a clear and deliberate subversion of the inherent racism contained in the English language where ‘white’ denotes good (e.g. ‘white lie’) and ‘black’ denotes evil (e.g. ‘black magic’). This is a device that was born in the Black Power movement of the 1960s, has continued in militant hip hop music and performs an important linguistic revolution.
It is only by subverting and deconstructing the colour descriptions intrinsic to English that we can move past race and colour boundaries. See Derrida et al.
Hi Jamal your “clear and deliberate subversion” was rather unclear.
Where you used an adjective which describes a physical attribute (“fat”), and followed it up with another that can also describe a physical attribute (“white”), the primary interpretation is that you were saying “these obese, white skinned, guys”, because context from the first adjective implies its context to the second.
Also “white” is a common generic term for European people and the above (outrageous) footage was indeed filmed at the “European championships” offering another cue to the interpretation that you were describing the subject’s skin colour, and not their “goodness”.
Having watched such terrible violence, one hardly has any notion of “purity” or “goodness” about these people (the “whiteness” you refer to). Without such a cue, and given the contrary cues described above, a very large interpretive jump is necessary to perceive your comment in the way which you later clarify, which is why I considered it an unfortunate choice of words and why I lamented that you may regrettably appear to be making a racially intolerant comment.
I said I was *subverting* the notion of white as ‘pure’ by using it to describe these obese criminals. Hence the primary interpretation of my statement is one which detaches the idea of inherent goodness from ‘white’ people.
As I said, it was a conscious effort to free the English language from white supremacist overtones. In short – by using ‘white’ to desribe the generally odious, we free broad skin-colour terms from their value connotations. We detach ‘white’ from good, and ‘black’ from evil. The same applies by using words like ‘black’ and ‘brown’ in a positive light. Again, I refer you to the Black Power movement, hip hop music and deconstruction theory.
The fact that this was unclear to you merely proves that you have great difficulty in adjusting to the notion of white people as *not* inherently good or pure. This is why, I assume, you chose to focus the discussion on the word ‘white’ (clearly an important part of your psyche) and not on the matter at hand – football hooliganism.
Finally, I lament your use of the term ‘terrible violence’ to refer to petty criminalism on the part of some drunken white men. Sober white men are causing infinitely greater violence – in non-European countries – as we speak. Hyperbole will merely detract from any reasoned argument.
I should also point out, as an example of what I am referring to, the title of Michael Moore’s worldwide bestseller – ‘Stupid White Men’.
Hi Jamal,
Having deconstructed the English language, should readers interpret your original statement as: “I would like to see these obese petty criminals in a real war zone.“? I’ve added emphasis below to show where your explanation suggests this.
I’m surprised that you do not consider somebody being glassed in the face an example of “terrible violence”, it’s certainly not something I would describe as a petty criminal attack.
Language is a means of communication: ambiguity merely reduces our means to communicate. The above statement is ambiguous because of the “deconstruction” you’ve introduced. It could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) as a specific reference to white-skinned people, because “Sober good men”, “Sober nice men”, “Sober pure men”, etc. do not cause “infinitely greater violence” in other countries.
Regardless of the ambiguity the “non-European” bit it helps with the interpretation of: “I would like to see these people in a real war zone.” which I’ve read as an ironic juxtaposition of their irrational violence whilst (through good fortune alone) living in a country which is not suffering the ravages of a war, thus highlighting the stupidity of their bickering.
Your assumption is incorrect; I harbour no such delusion.
I’m disappointed that you’ve not offered me the the same benefit of the doubt which I afforded you when assuming that you were not intending to be racially intolerant in your remark; perhaps you’re just trying to push my buttons to understand why I commented.
The focus was not mine. In your original comment you wrote just two sentences. The subject of both sentences was hooligans and you used the adjective “white” to describe them. I merely pointed out that because of this, your comment could be interpreted as racially intolerant, which I assumed was unintentional.
Actually, I think interpreting his original statement like that would indeed be correct.
In comparison to the complete annihilation of a people, yes, glassing someone in the face is petty. Your definition of “terrible violence” actually invalidates your following argument against “Sober white men causing infinitely greater violence”.
You did choose to focus on the use of the word ‘white’ which shows that actually you are arguing against Jamals use of wording rather then his point, which is a valid one.
Racial intolerance is indeed an issue; however this is not an example of that. If anything, I would call this an attempt to sabotage ones argument due to their blunt use of language.
I know you won’t like this, but racial intolerance is not balanced. If anyone is going to be the victim of racism, it’s going to be me or Jamal. A victim mentality will not get you anywhere.
Hi Usayd,
you’re sadly correct that you are far more likely to be a victim of racism (both overt and secretive) through no fault of your own, which is a sorry state of affairs. Nobody should have to suffer intolerance based on race, religion, physical capability, sexual preference or anything else.
Jamal’s point is an interesting one, and it was merely the misleading wording that I was discussing.
In fact far from subverting Jamal’s point, I was trying to be a bit defensive of his position (“…distance himself from the thugs indefensible behaviour…”) but I failed to properly insulate him from the clarification – so perhaps I should have been more explicit in this, however, the ambiguity of the subversive deconstruction was unapparent until Jamal’s subsequent explanation.