June 15, 2003

Word Association Football

It's a bit "last week" and all that, but I've been thinking about this Christopher Hitchens column ever since I first saw the link in a distant, long since archived InstaPundit post.

Hitchens notes yet another possible angle to the strangely persistent, (barely) sub rosa current of crude anti-Semitism among hifalutin British journalists:

"Yes that's all very well," said the chap from the BBC World Service, "but what about this man Vulfervitz who seems to run the whole show from behind the scenes?" For the fifth time in as many days, and for the umpteenth time this year, I corrected a British interviewer's pronunciation. You see the name in print, you hear it uttered quite a lot in American discussions, you then give a highly inflected rendition of your own. ... What is this? In my young day, the BBC had a special department for the pronunciation of foreign names for the guidance of those commenting on Thailand, say, or Mongolia. But this particular name is pronounced as it is spelled. "Very well," said the BBC chap, with a hint of bad grace. "This man Wolfervitz ..."

It takes a lot, I hope, to make me feel queasy. (I had, during my appointment at the BBC offices in London, already had to pass a door with a sign reading "Male Prayer Room," which means that the British taxpayer is already funding not just religious observance on public property but the sexual segregation of same.) And this is not quite like old-line reactionaries going out of their way to say "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld." Still, I don't think I am quite wrong in suspecting that a sharpened innuendo is in play here. Why else, when the very name of Paul Wolfowitz is mentioned, do so many people bid adieu to the very notion of objectivity?


He's right that there's real cause for alarm "with the practice of what, if anyone else were to be the target, the left would already be calling 'demonization.'"

I've spent a fair amount of time in England, and I've noted a consistent paradox (about which I've written several times over the last couple of years on this blog, here and elsewhere.) Sentiments which to an American observer seem obviously to reflect a kind of passive, low-level anti-Semitism, a vague yet detectable distaste for Jews and Jewishness often expressed with a ferocity that seems all out of proportion to the content of the allegedly innocent complaints about this or that Israeli policy or person-- such sentiments are very much in the air. You notice it everywhere. And yet none of those who drop the pointed innuendoes, or curl their lips slightly or grimace when speaking of certain matters or individuals, appear to be aware that that's what they're doing. They react with the genuine outrage of the wrongly accused if the subject is even hinted at. And at some point in the exchange one inevitably hears, often intoned with a degree of bitterness, the stock phrase which to me now seems as characteristically British as "have a nice day" is American: "criticism of Israel isn't necessarily anti-Semitism." That "necessarily" being the putative "get out of anti-Semitism free" card, the benefit of the doubt that British "anti-Zionists" claim preemptively as their inalienable right.

In many cases, I'm sure this impression results from hyper-awareness or -sensitivity, from "reading something into" innocuous or merely carelessly-worded statements. I'll cop to that. In some, it may be a case of their being in denial, or merely of living in a cultural world where the remnants of Europe's long-standing tradition of anti-Semitism are so dyed in the wool that only outsiders are able to notice them as such when they reveal themselves. In certain rare cases, it may result from a deliberate attempt to speak "in code" a la Pat Buchanan, but in my experience actual instances of this are scarce indeed.

The causes are disparate, the signs varying in subtlety, and the conclusions about them occasionally or even often unfair or mistaken, but the impression of a slow-simmering, subliminal anti-Semitism is pronounced and I don't think it's based on nothing. At any rate, it's safe to say that the threshold for wondering about or taking note of possible indications of anti-Semitism, the point on the scale at which one starts to say "hey, that sounds a little odd...", is far higher in Britain than it is in the U.S. (Many might attribute this, perhaps with justification, to American political correctness; yet those in the run of the mill left-leaning British circles I'm familiar with are just as politically correct and "progressive" as their American counterparts-- in theory, anyway-- saving when it comes to this single ethnic-religious category.)

Dave Bug of Geek Life, a frequent correspondent, once noted in an email of his experience in Eastern Europe:

I was shocked by the anti-Gypsy/Romani sentiment offered up by otherwise lefties in Eastern Europe. I guess it’s about as close as I’ll get to knowing what pre-civil rights US was like.

I'm not sure how close that would be when it comes to British anti-Semitism (obviously, not very); still, similar thoughts have occurred to me when I've found myself in the midst of a round of criticism that isn't necessarily anti-Semitic.

Like Hitchens, I don't think the BBC journalists' mispronunciation of Wolfowitz is on the order of the "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld" of Hitchens's "old-line reactionaries." That is, I don't think it's deliberately delivered with a knowing nudge-nudge wink-wink and with the explicit motive of furthering, in a small, personal way, the anti-Semitic cause. This is the BBC, not the New Statesman, after all; that institution hasn't yet abandoned the pretense of decency.

But you'd think that after all the anti-Semitic smoke (at least some of which indicates some measure of anti-Semitic fire) from the British media of late when it comes to Wolfowitz, the journalists in question would see the wisdom of considering their words more carefully. Whatever their feelings about Jews, latent or explicit, and even if they're completely innocent of anti-Semitism of any kind, they ought at least to realize how bad it makes them sound (especially when talking to Hitchens, an attack-column waiting to go off in a market particularly sensitive and unforgiving about such things.) They don't. I really think they don't. And, as I always end up lamely saying as I throw up my hands and confess my failure to make heads or tails of the recurrent British Left/anti-Semitism puzzle: that's pretty weird.

Posted by Dr. Frank at June 15, 2003 09:51 PM | TrackBack
Comments

How to decide whether the "Volfovitz" intuition is substantive when, instead of clarifying it, Hitchens clouds it with amateur psychoanalysis and stacked characterizations? Theoretically I've learned: (a) that there's cause for alarm, (b) that Wolfowitz can be quite sexy when not in motion.

Point of comparison-- http://www-csli.stanford.edu/%7Enunberg/index.html

Great new site!

...too many "increase your manhood" pop-ups, imo.

Posted by: spacetoast at June 16, 2003 05:52 AM

Simply.

Its my experience that a great number of people today count on MY (OUR) courteous desire to be polite, in order to mask many rather nasty habits, anti-Semitism being one, but anti-Black, anti-Arab, anti-women, anti-white... and when I (one) catch them on it, or comment on the 5th little, tiny facial twitch in a row or the 7th nasty s.l.u.r., then its "Oh, no! You're PROJECTING your own fears and bigotries onto poor li'l me..."

No, I'm not. BBC has a problem, and anti-Semitism is one aspect of it, and I've observed anti-Americanism, anti-US-military, anti-American-efforts-against-Saddamites, and other repeated, counter-productive 'anti-' efforts on the part of the Beeb. I didn't project them, they were there AND observed, over time, in the discrete and in the aggregate, by others.

Posted by: Sharpshooter at June 16, 2003 02:21 PM

Football culture in England is another outlet for latent anti-semitism to manifest itself. It's a truly bizarre phenomenon to hear progressive britons sing 'A jew is an animal in funny black clothes/ He's got a beard and a great big nose,/ He's got lot's of money and he won't spend his cash/ And he won't invest in British Gas,/ So if you chop of your foreskin when you are a kid
You might grow up to be a yid...
Yiddo, yiddo, yiddo. "
Or "Chim chimmery, chim chimmery, chim chim charoo, Klinsmann was Nazi but now now he's a jew
(Gazza was a Geordie but now he's a jew)"

But if course this isn't anti-Semitism; these are merely anti-Zionist chants against that great bulwark of Zionism, Tottenham Hotspur. Of course.

Posted by: marc at June 16, 2003 07:08 PM

Marc,

Come on, you're pulling my leg. Are you?

Could these possibly be actual football chants, that you've actually heard? If so it goes a bit beyond "latent."

Good Lord.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at June 16, 2003 07:24 PM

It's true. I support Tottenham, and often heard references to the 'Yid army'. I didn't know what the hell people were talking about - I thought there was some old player whose name started with Yid or something. My wife explained that Tottenham supporters came from an area of North London that encompassed the orthodox Jewish enclave of the city, so that's where the reference comes from.
I knew quite a few Chelsea fans as well, so that's where I heard a number of these chants. I've asked some about the whole 'Yid Army' thing and many will smile and then break into one of these chants. The thing is, they're not generally anti-semitic. I keep thinking they must be, but as they themselves say, Chelsea also comes from a Jewish neighborhood and has more Jewish supporters. THAT makes no sense whatsoever. People hasten to add that the National Front supplied the lyrics to a number of the songs, which is quite likely, and that they were used to make Spurs supporters uncomfortable - a goal that was so important that normal boundaries of taste and propriety could be crossed at will.

There's a whole list of chants here:
http://www.nicholas.harrison.mcmail.com/cfcsong3.htm
I haven't heard most of them, but I've heard a few. I love the guy's insistence that these were chanted by Chelsea's non-orthodox jews at Tottenham because of the intolerance of the Orthodox. Yeah. That must have been it.

Posted by: marc at June 16, 2003 07:35 PM

"not generally antisemitic"?? Marc, are you serious? I can't imagine you are; such lyrics are about as stereotyping as one can get.

Let me add a thought to the "antisemitism vs. anti-Zionism" discussion. Of course, as has been pointed out endlessly, criticizing Israel, or its government, is not in itself antisemitic. One comes close to crossing the line, however, if one cannot bring oneself to say ANYTHING good about Israel. (Come on, force yourself. Don't they export nice oranges?)

In individuals, this manifests itself as someone who will insist on criticizing Israel, even if the issue is one where Israel stands head and shoulders above its neighbors. (There are many such issues -- women's rights, fair and open elections, standard of living, education, and so forth.) At the national level, we can see something analogous. This happens when a country cannot bring itself to conduct policy favorable to Israel, but is neutral at best and hostile at worst.

This has been the official attitude of the British government toward Israel, since 1948, with hardly a pause for breath. (Britain was willing to use Israel as a blunt instrument in 1956; awfully kind of them. But Britain has never hesitated to criticize Israel whenever anyone else did, and has often been willing to go it alone. On the other hand, has Britain helped Israel when she needed it? Hardly, if at all.)

That such a British foreign policy toward Israel has remained, decade in and decade out, through successive changes in government, implies a common British attitude toward Israel. As I said earlier, such an attitude is not itself an indication of antisemitism; but when that attitude NEVER CHANGES, you have to wonder.

Daniel

Posted by: Daniel Schwartz at June 17, 2003 12:05 AM

Daniel,
This is the hardest part about this whole phenomenon to understand. Think of it as a corollary to Herr Doktor's confusion about the left/anti-semitic nexus in Britain: "I throw up my hands and confess my failure to make heads or tails of the recurrent British Left/anti-Semitism puzzle: that's pretty weird."

At least in my experience, these chants and songs are seen as okay because football is so distinct, so separate from life that normal boundaries don't apply. Progressive, educated Labourites didn't make up these chants, but at a football game, they'd sing along. People who would cheer at calls to increase spending on the police will still yell 'Kill Kill, Kill the Bill (the police)' at football matches. I don't get it - it makes no sense, and while deep-seated racism/lust for violence would explain it, that would mean that large fractions of the English population are simply high-functioning psychopaths. More likely, it's classic crowd behavior. A few national front guys start a chant and, because it's football (and because it drives the opposition fans crazy), everyone starts singing along.

Posted by: Marc at June 17, 2003 05:32 PM

I dunno, Marc -- what you're describing sounds awfully like a herd mentality to me. "Yes, I have my opinions, and yes, I know what antisemitism and racism are and why they're wrong... but when I go to a football game I like to shut my brain off and yell what everybody else is yelling."

Maybe one needs to have been born-and-bred British to understand. But I still don't buy it... and I don't have to like it either. (I'll confess: I don't like it when people habitually shut their brains off, no matter WHAT the reason.)

Let me add -- I agree with you that, in the minds of many British football fans, there might seem to be no connection to antisemitism, and as such the issue doesn't come up. "Yes, we call them Yids, but we don't mean that in a derogatory way, and we don't mean by that word what you do."

I can easily buy that as a reasonable-sounding excuse... but it still doesn't hold water. Some of those football slogans, suitably translated, would have been very much at home as WWII-era Nazi marching songs. It was not that long ago that such sentiments terrorized Jews across an entire continent. Is it so easy to ignore this, and to remember that the same Nazis were mortal enemies of the British, too?

And doesn't it say something about (possibly subconscious) British attitudes toward antisemitism, that this isn't perceived as a problem, even after it's pointed out?


I wonder what the reaction would be to a more "personal" song, one with lyrics like these. (This is slightly modified from something at the http://www.nicholas.harrison.mcmail.com/cfcsong3.htm site, off the top of my head).


"Kill the Yids!
Kill the Yids!
Hitler was right, kill all the Yids!
We don't care if you bring on the Blitz,
Go ahead and blow us to bits,
As long as you kill the all @$#%ing Yids!"

Are there any British volunteers, willing to go to a Tottenham game and try a chant like that? Who knows, it might just wake some people up...

(Or start a new round of "football hooliganism"...)

Posted by: Daniel Schwartz at June 17, 2003 08:57 PM

Let me apologize in advance to any who might find my previous comments offensive. Yes, they ARE offensive; I intended them to be that way, to make a point. And if anyone is sensitive enough to recoil from such offensive words, thank you -- that's part of the point I was trying to make.

Freedom of speech has its limits. One doesn't shout "fire" in a crowded theater; one doesn't tease a battered and frightened child with suggestive humor. And one shouldn't co-opt Nazi slogans and claim to be civilized... certainly not for a bloody FOOTBALL GAME.

I trust Dr. Frank's readers are perceptive enough to distinguish an antisemitic tirade from a discussion about the tirade.

Daniel

Posted by: Daniel Schwartz at June 17, 2003 09:07 PM

Daniel,
You're right - the chants are abhorrent, and 'herd mentality' and 'crowd behavior' go hand in hand. But there's also something else going on here that's quite bizarre - Tottenham fans (and players) are now synonomous with Jews. Of course this is ludicrous; all of this is ludicrous. But there's something very strange going on when gentile Brits scream 'We are the Yids! We are the Yids!' (a pro-Tottenham chant) and the opposition fans scream the insults seen above. Why would Tottenham fans grab the insults and make them a part of their identity? Why would Chelsea fans (stereotypically middle class) chant third reich-era slogans at a team from a few miles away in London? None of it makes sense, not Charlton fans singing about burning Crystal Palace fans on a bon fire, not Arsenal fans making hissing noises (to simulate gas chambers). The whole thing is fucked up. But yet I can't bring myself to say that Britain, as a whole, seethes with barely contained racism. There are racist elements in British society, just as there are anywhere else, but I don't think it will do to say that the chants proves that the British are racist to the core. It's bizarre and ugly, but they've created an outlet for hatred that's kind of safe, because it's so obviously made up. While some in the crowds truly are psychos, I don't think most people actually want to burn opposing fans or kill police officers. They chant for the frisson of saying the unthinkable, to get the opposition fans riled up, and they know the only place it works is in the stands. The enmity between clubs (that stretched back generations - it has nothing to do with recent results) provides a direction, a target. In this case, the enmity between local clubs has taken on the trappings of traditional anti-semitism. Does it matter that the 'targets' in this case are 99% non-Jewish? Maybe not, but it means this is a very distinct, very weird sort of thing.
I'm just glad they don't do this in the US.

Posted by: Marc at June 17, 2003 09:34 PM

must blocks int. of.

Posted by: mother and son at May 18, 2004 08:47 PM