Perspective a)
Racism has become the buzzword in football over the summer.
The entire John Terry fiasco has highlighted the ridiculousness behind how we perceive
footballers. Should Terry have been found guilty, he would have faced a £2,500
fine and a criminal record. Next to his weekly wages and the disturbingly large
number of criminal records amongst football players, it would have been more
effective to lock him in a room with Jedward…for an hour. Using entirely
subjective means to determine whether one is guilty in a court of law seems
like a contradiction in itself, and if you read Judge Riddle’s judgement, the
process seems laughable. The case was essentially, both in and out of court, a
decision of “how terrible a person do we think John Terry is?” An entirely
arbitrary threshold had to be made as to what point racism occurs. If Ferdinand
called Terry a “white c*nt” would the case be switched round? I think not but
that’s not the point. The point is that this is a relatively minor act to be
brought to a court of law, one which has cost the tax-payer at least £500,000
and achieved nothing but rile people up.
Immediately following the decision,
anti-racism groups spoke out, essentially claiming that racism has won and
black players will now fear speaking up (I’m going to ignore that fact that most statements I have read ignore any other race
as being potentially affected by racism). Even when the judicial process clears
the charges, it is clear that many had already made up their minds. This ethical
balance here is questionable at best. Along with the reactions was Rio
Ferdinand’s monumental act of stupidity and, unlike Terry’s court case, this
judgement is not subjective. Agreeing that Ashley Cole is a ‘choc ice’ (black
on the outside, white on the inside) on TWITTER is not only moronic but
potentially more racist that original accusation. Let’s analyse this term;
racism is discrimination of an individual due to their ethnicity. The concept
of being a ‘choc ice’ implies that being black and being white are separate
states of being. The use of this term implies that white is antagonistic to black
and that being black on the outside is some kind of lie, a façade that covers
your true person (not in general, but for the accused). Moreover, being white
thus represents being ‘not black’ and within this context, generalizes
whiteness with racist tendencies. I wish I was being farfetched with this description,
however in this context it is hard to disagree. Ashley Cole is being singled
out, his race is being brought into question, he is being discriminated on for being black and that several
implications are being placed on both him and the concept of being white. I
accept, ‘choc ice’ and ‘coconut’ have a wide range of uses, but here it is a
degree of racism far worse than John Terry’s utterances. And as it is placed on
a public sphere, knowingly to millions of people its context is far more
damning than heated interchange on a football pitch. Ferdinand’s response sums
up the complete idiocy of it all,
“What I
said yesterday is not a racist term. Its (sic) a type of slang/term used by
many for someone who is being fake. So there.”
‘So there’! Is he 16 now?! He isn’t even aware
of the implications of what he has said, despite the entire issue surrounding a
disputed case of racism.
Idiocy and ridiculousness aside, the main problem of it all
is that this could all have been resolved more easily. In October 2011 Luis
Suarez (Liverpool FC) was accused of racially abusing Patrice Evra (Manchester
Utd FC) and by the end of the year, was handed a £40,000 fine and an 8 match
ban. The punishment was an adequate level of severity for a footballer and an
effective deterrent against future offences. Had the FA taken the Terry case
themselves, the situation would have resolved in a timely, effective manner. The
matter would have been handled, dealt with and likely to be forgotten by now.
Yet instead we have an intensely bloated news storm which has bred exaggeration
and stupidity that could so easily have been missed.
