"Yid" Chanting Part 2 - new poll

[Smoked Salmon]

Wouldn't worry. It's just the problem with forums. You write stuff but can't put intonation into it. You never know how it's going to be received by the reader.

To be honest, I'm not reading anything that comes across to me as stiring up trouble or trolling.

Tell you're mate that nobody is setting out to be offensive.

If anything, since I have been here this forum has been refreshing for it's lack of immaturity and drama queens. Let's not start down that road.

 

[SimonSays]

Cheers Schoolboy. You've made me look a right tit.

Anyway guys, no hard feelings. It's good to see an overdue civilised debate on the subject.

I really think people need to be educated in the word's history so that anyone using it does so out of a conscious choice.

 

[tehTrunk]

Sorry, but taking offence at gentile is a bit silly. It has not roots in, and has never been used as, a degrogatory term. It simply means, as has been said above, "non-jew".

In contrast, the term "goy" - which originally wasn't offensive either - has been adopted to be used as an offensive term, much in the same way as the word kafir has been taken from is't original meaning in the Koran and adopted as a means of insult. Therefore I would expect non-jew referred to as "goy" or "goyim" to be rightly offended in exactly the say context as a Jew would to the word "yid". So "goy and "goyim" are very much open to debate. Gentile is not.

Gentile though? No, that's no more offensive that saying "non-black".

But as a Jew, who are you to say what offends non-jews or Gentiles?

 

[SimonSays]

Wouldn't worry. It's just the problem with forums. You write stuff but can't put intonation into it. You never know how it's going to be received by the reader.

To be honest, I'm not reading anything that comes across to me as stiring up trouble or trolling.

Tell you're mate that nobody is setting out to be offensive.

If anything, since I have been here this forum has been refreshing for it's lack of immaturity and drama queens. Let's not start down that road.

Who are you calling drama queen?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Sorry, but taking offence at gentile is a bit silly. It has not roots in, and has never been used as, a degrogatory term. It simply means, as has been said above, "non-jew".

In contrast, the term "goy" - which originally wasn't offensive either - has been adopted to be used as an offensive term, much in the same way as the word kafir has been taken from is't original meaning in the Koran and adopted as a means of insult. Therefore I would expect non-jew referred to as "goy" or "goyim" to be rightly offended in exactly the say context as a Jew would to the word "yid". So "goy and "goyim" are very much open to debate. Gentile is not.

Gentile though? No, that's no more offensive that saying "non-black".

But as a Jew, who are you to say what offends non-jews or Gentiles?

It isn't about what I say, it's about how these words have developed in society, which is exactly the point I just made. It's about the context in which they have been used over years. Goy has been adopted tobe used offensively for many years. Gentile never has been.

As for who am I, if you cast your mind back to the other thread you might remember my family history post and that I have a gentile father. So I am actually probably best placed, perhaps beyond anyone else in this debate, to take a view on this since I've heard all the insults possible fly back and forth in my own family. If a Jew who had both a Jewish mother and father called me a son of gentile for only being a Jew by virtue of my mother (it flows through the mother's side),would I be offended? I wouldn't have thought so. Would I be offended if I were called "spawn of a goyim", or somesuch? Yes, probably.

What is it to you that makes Gentile potentially offensive?

 

[Dr. Filth]

I used to think we were good at racism in America, but it seems like every week I learn a new slur thanks to football.

 

[The Cowbell]

I'm a non Jew and I don't think it's an offensive term, not when we use it anyway. It's a celebration and a 'fuck you' to those who try and use it against us and our history in a negative context.

Words only carry meaning in the context they're being used in. When we use the term, we're not using it to cause offence.

 

[BernardMatthews]

This is really all about context of how something is said and perceived.

At Spurs and to/with fellow Spurs fans, I have no trouble using it. However I have some Jewish friends who I know do find it offensive.

So the question for me is "Would I feel I was causing offence if I took them to White Hart Lane and started chanting 'yid army' while standing next to them?" The answer is yes it would cause them offence so I probably wouldn't do it because to some people it is offensive.
However by and large the way Spurs fans use the word they are not setting out to cause any offense.

I saw on another thread about this the Suarez incident and his use of the term negrito and negro. And negro being deemed offensive.
The industry I work in we work closely with Spanish and Italian companies and "Negro" is often used to describe products that are black. On their websites in the UK, Europe and South America this will be found. However in the US they change the name and call it Night. They do something similar with the term Blanco. Which I guess says a lot more about how the word is treated in the US and the context it could be taken in.

I found it quite strange at one point but always say neh-gro rather than knee-gro. I guess there is context in just saying it in different ways.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

So the question for me is "Would I feel I was causing offence if I took them to White Hart Lane and started chanting 'yid army' while standing next to them?" The answer is yes it would cause them offence so I probably wouldn't do it because to some people it is offensive.
However by and large the way Spurs fans use the word they are not setting out to cause any offense.

But if they aren't standing next to you and there are other Jews who don't like it sitting in the stadium it's ok?

 

[tehTrunk]

Sorry, but taking offence at gentile is a bit silly. It has not roots in, and has never been used as, a degrogatory term. It simply means, as has been said above, "non-jew".

In contrast, the term "goy" - which originally wasn't offensive either - has been adopted to be used as an offensive term, much in the same way as the word kafir has been taken from is't original meaning in the Koran and adopted as a means of insult. Therefore I would expect non-jew referred to as "goy" or "goyim" to be rightly offended in exactly the say context as a Jew would to the word "yid". So "goy and "goyim" are very much open to debate. Gentile is not.

Gentile though? No, that's no more offensive that saying "non-black".

But as a Jew, who are you to say what offends non-jews or Gentiles?

It isn't about what I say, it's about how these words have developed in society, which is exactly the point I just made. It's about the context in which they have been used over years. Goy has been adopted tobe used offensively for many years. Gentile never has been.

As for who am I, if you cast your mind back to the other thread you might remember my family history post and that I have a gentile father. So I am actually probably best placed, perhaps beyond anyone else in this debate, to take a view on this since I've heard all the insults possible fly back and forth in my own family. If a Jew who had both a Jewish mother and father called me a son of gentile for only being a Jew by virtue of my mother (it flows through the mother's side),would I be offended? I wouldn't have thought so. Would I be offended if I were called "spawn of a goyim", or somesuch? Yes, probably.

What is it to you that makes Gentile potentially offensive?

Very good point, and I must admit to lolling at 'spawn of a goyim', might adopt that as a new moniker...

I think it's that naive utopian idea where by we could live in a world where 'ethnic' differences aren't used as defining features of a person.

A: Who mugged you?
B: Group of young lads in hoods
A: That's terrible, fucking typical
-------------------------------
vs
-------------------------------
A: Who mugged you?
B: Group of young Asian lads in hoods
A: That's terrible, fucking typical

Despite there not being any clear cut racism used, the fact that the race of the lads in the second example is alluded to instantly makes it sound a lot more negative.

"Gentile" may not be an outwardly offensive term, but when adopted as a way of describing something different to yourself via the use of an all encompassing term, is surely ignorant if not offensive?

"Yid" much like "Paki" have become offensive as they've been used by the 'indigenous' majority to denote those from 'elsewhere'. To abbreviate a word like "Yiddish" or "Pakistani" isn't a racist act in itself, and whether or not it was in the first place is something I couldn't say, but these terms have since become offensive due to the way in which they've been used.

The literal of "Gentile" being "Non-Jew" is just as irrelevant as "Paki" being short for "Pakistani" when used in the sentence, "the fucking Gentile are so uncivilized" for example.

I feel the pro "Yid Army" camp argue in the opposite light. Example being that to say "fucking penny pinching Yids" is very different to singing "Jermain Defoe, he is a Yiddo".

Given that the majority populace in the West is "Gentile", this has unfortunately seen prejudice thrown the way of Jewish peoples with the word "Yid" being used in a negative context toward them.

There are obviously attrocities on both a grand scale such as WW2 and on the minor scale (comparatively) in your playground experiences, that now see the term carry with it a very dark undertone.

This is where the argument of the "Yid Army" being sung by the "Gentile" becomes complex. In the times of strife, where our Jewish roots and supporter base were victim to repulsive chants from rivals, the "Gentile" stood arm in arm as if to say "well he's on the same terrace, cheering on the same boys as me, so if he's a fucking Yid then so am I". It's to suggest that the brotherhood we find in supporting Tottenham Hotspur, far outreaches any minscule biological differences that we are born with and can not change.

Whether or not, however, this makes it acceptable for a toddler born to predominantly Anglo-Saxon parents to have "Yid 4 Life" on the back of his or her replica shirt under the above pretence, is tricky.

I fear I'm at risk of losing any sort of coherent point so I'm going to stop it there for now.

If you've managed to go through all that and following my shotgun cerebral pattern, then good on you.

LOL DIDN'T READ etc

 

[Éperons]

What is it to you that makes Gentile potentially offensive?

I actually have a friend who is offended by the word.

He's a rather serious Catholic who is rather liberal about a lot of things. To him, what Catholicism teaches is a radical equality of everyone in the spiritual world, a template by which one should strive to live in the temporal one, as well.

To him, the fact that there is a specific word in Judaism to describe those not Chosen to be in the faith is a symbol of Judaism's disinterest in this kind of radical equality. There are the Chosen, and then there are the rest, who have their own name: Gentiles.

In this reasoning, 'Gentile' is not equivalent to 'non-Catholic', which would be the analogous term in his religion, because contemporary RC dogma grants that 'non-Catholics' can also receive Grace (iirc. This is a bit out of my wheelhouse...). There's no similar theological equivalence in Judaism.

That all said, it's clear that while he says the term is offensive, what he means is that he finds the religion's (perceived) anti-egalitarianism offensive, and the existence of the word is a reminder of that anti-egalitarianism.

So, yeah. Since you asked…

 

[thedutchman]

Trunk - In the middle of all that you've made an excellent point, and one that I agree with...

The word p*ki as an abbreviation for Pakistani is not racist in itself...however, the context that the word was/is used in over the last 30-40 years have meant that for many/most the word has racist connotations and is one they would never now use as they consider it as such, much like the word "Yid" will for those who have experienced or witnessed abuse/discrimination from people using that word in that way.

Context is all in these kind of situations, but that leaves a whole wide shade of grey in these issues that many people see as black and white i.e. racist or not. Ultimately two different circumstances where someone shouts the word "Yid" at another person would be considered completely differently and that is very hard to legislate for and even explain away.

For me the use of the word "Yid" or "Yiddo" to refer to a fellow Spurs fan or player is an umbrella under which we all feel one regardless of race, religion, background, sexuality etc. But erasing/changing the historical context of a word is nigh on impossible over a short period.

 

[Schoolboy'sOwnStuff]

What is it to you that makes Gentile potentially offensive?

I actually have a friend who is offended by the word.

He's a rather serious Catholic who is rather liberal about a lot of things. To him, what Catholicism teaches is a radical equality of everyone in the spiritual world, a template by which one should strive to live in the temporal one, as well.

To him, the fact that there is a specific word in Judaism to describe those not Chosen to be in the faith is a symbol of Judaism's disinterest in this kind of radical equality. There are the Chosen, and then there are the rest, who have their own name: Gentiles.

In this reasoning, 'Gentile' is not equivalent to 'non-Catholic', which would be the analogous term in his religion, because contemporary RC dogma grants that 'non-Catholics' can also receive Grace (iirc. This is a bit out of my wheelhouse...). There's no similar theological equivalence in Judaism.

That all said, it's clear that while he says the term is offensive, what he means is that he finds the religion's (perceived) anti-egalitarianism offensive, and the existence of the word is a reminder of that anti-egalitarianism.

So, yeah. Since you asked…

How does he feel about homosexuality?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I think it's that naive utopian idea where by we could live in a world where 'ethnic' differences aren't used as defining features of a person.

Such a Uptopia is a long long time away.

A: Who mugged you?
B: Group of young lads in hoods
A: That's terrible, fucking typical
-------------------------------
vs
-------------------------------
A: Who mugged you?
B: Group of young Asian lads in hoods
A: That's terrible, fucking typical

Despite there not being any clear cut racism used, the fact that the race of the lads in the second example is alluded to instantly makes it sound a lot more negative.

Does it? "Bunch of Pakis" would sound worse to me.

"Gentile" may not be an outwardly offensive term, but when adopted as a way of describing something different to yourself via the use of an all encompassing term, is surely ignorant if not offensive?

This paragraph, and your comparison above actually raises a further point. When is a word simply defining who a person is and when does it start to becomne offensive.

Now, in theory, yes we should all just be human beings. But I am not seeing "young Asians lads in hoods" as being any different from "four lads with blonde hair". It's their ethnicity so it is an idenifier. If you were to say -Paki then you are using a wors that is clearly regarded as a slur. Similarly is it wrong to say "four black lads"? Would you feel guilty about that? Or would it become wrong once we used a phrase like "four coons"? So, you see the potential different between using gentile and using goy or goyim? The fact is that goy, coon and paki have all be used over the years with malice to cause offence and have become socially regarded as such. They are often used in a context to refer to said ethnicities as if they are inferior. The cannot be said of asian, black or indeed gentile. Frankly I think that the only reason this question about gentile is coming up is because it's a word that most of the British population are not insantly familiar with or use in the course of their lives.

"Yid" much like "p*ki" have become offensive as they've been used by the 'indigenous' majority to denote those from 'elsewhere'. To abbreviate a word like "Yiddish" or "Pakistani" isn't a racist act in itself, and whether or not it was in the first place is something I couldn't say, but these terms have since become offensive due to the way in which they've been used.

Indeed, and as I am suggesting above it is often the past use which is the defining element of whether or not something is regarded as offensive. I would say the onlt exception to this is when a slur is based around racial stereotypes (i.e black men all have big penises, asians all smell of curry and so on).

The literal of "Gentile" being "Non-Jew" is just as irrelevant as "p*ki" being short for "Pakistani" when used in the sentence, "the fucking Gentile are so uncivilized" for example.

Well, I think if you said "fucking Pakistanis are all uncivilised" then you'd be making an offensive statement without any individual slur words. Much the same as if you used gentile in that context. A statement can be offensive with necessarily have any individually offensive words in said statement, if you see what I mean by that.

I feel the pro "Yid Army" camp argue in the opposite light. Example being that to say "fucking penny pinching Yids" is very different to singing "Jermain Defoe, he is a Yiddo".

Yes, but as I have said above, the difference is that the Yid word has a history of being used a derogatory term in of itself. Gentile by itself has not. That is the difference. Essentially any sentence containing the yid word would be offensive by defauly, whereas one containing gentiles would not unless the combination of words it was with amounted to an offensive sentence. It's the same as any sentence containing the wordpaki being offensive by default, but sentences containing Pakistani or asian not being offensive unless placed in an agressive or malicious sentence.

Given that the majority populace in the West is "Gentile", this has unfortunately seen prejudice thrown the way of Jewish peoples with the word "Yid" being used in a negative context toward them.

Not just in the West.

There are obviously attrocities on both a grand scale such as WW2 and on the minor scale (comparatively) in your playground experiences, that now see the term carry with it a very dark undertone.

What playground experiences?

This is where the argument of the "Yid Army" being sung by the "Gentile" becomes complex. In the times of strife, where our Jewish roots and supporter base were victim to repulsive chants from rivals, the "Gentile" stood arm in arm as if to say "well he's on the same terrace, cheering on the same boys as me, so if he's a fucking Yid then so am I". It's to suggest that the brotherhood we find in supporting Tottenham Hotspur, far outreaches any minscule biological differences that we are born with and can not change.

But how many people are even aware of this ideal?

Plus, this goes back to what was debated earlier of the course of the past two days. That because the attitude is that if the predominantly gentile fan base is somehow doing us a favour by sticking up for us, it ceases to be offensive. It's exactly the same as listen to a crowd of several thousand white people calling themselves "the Nigger Army" and then claiming that they are sticking up for "our nigger friends". That doesn't sound right to me.

Whether or not, however, this makes it acceptable for a toddler born to predominantly Anglo-Saxon parents to have "Yid 4 Life" on the back of his or her replica shirt under the above pretence, is tricky.

It's not tricky. Either the word is racist and can cause some people offense or it isn't.I see no difference in a Yid Army tatoo than I do those who rely on the reclamation argument.

I fear I'm at risk of losing any sort of coherent point so I'm going to stop it there for now.

I'm following exactly the question you are throwing out for consideration.

If you've managed to go through all that and following my shotgun cerebral pattern, then good on you.

Compared to the rambling shite I have had to read weekly from clients your post is positively Shakespearean.

 

[BernardMatthews]

So the question for me is "Would I feel I was causing offence if I took them to White Hart Lane and started chanting 'yid army' while standing next to them?" The answer is yes it would cause them offence so I probably wouldn't do it because to some people it is offensive.
However by and large the way Spurs fans use the word they are not setting out to cause any offense.

But if they aren't standing next to you and there are other Jews who don't like it sitting in the stadium it's ok?

No that's my point, when you put it into that context you won't say it. If the person next to me said excuse me I'm Jewish I would rather you didn't use the term I would listen to them. However when there are 10, 50 people in a pub or a few hundred at a game you often say things people will find offensive.

I also don't say fuck, cunt or wanker in front of my child or in my professional dealings, but happily use them at football grounds. All of them will be deemed offensive words to most people I know.

Is the Yid word different because of it's racial connotations or are we just asking is it offensive? I have voted it is offensive, because to some it is. Do I act in a generally offensive way around a football stadium? Most people would say I probably do.

 

[Coalhada]

Plus, this goes back to what was debated earlier of the course of the past two days. That because the attitude is that if the predominantly gentile fan base is somehow doing us a favour by sticking up for us, it ceases to be offensive. It's exactly the same as listen to a crowd of several thousand white people calling themselves "the n*gger Army" and then claiming that they are sticking up for "our n*gger friends". That doesn't sound right to me.

I don't think that mirrors the usage of 'yid' by Spurs supporters.
What if they called themselves 'the n*gger army' and said they did it to stick up for "our black friends"?

 

[Smoked Salmon]

What is it to you that makes Gentile potentially offensive?

I actually have a friend who is offended by the word.

He's a rather serious Catholic who is rather liberal about a lot of things. To him, what Catholicism teaches is a radical equality of everyone in the spiritual world, a template by which one should strive to live in the temporal one, as well.

To him, the fact that there is a specific word in Judaism to describe those not Chosen to be in the faith is a symbol of Judaism's disinterest in this kind of radical equality. There are the Chosen, and then there are the rest, who have their own name: Gentiles.

In this reasoning, 'Gentile' is not equivalent to 'non-Catholic', which would be the analogous term in his religion, because contemporary RC dogma grants that 'non-Catholics' can also receive Grace (iirc. This is a bit out of my wheelhouse...). There's no similar theological equivalence in Judaism.

That all said, it's clear that while he says the term is offensive, what he means is that he finds the religion's (perceived) anti-egalitarianism offensive, and the existence of the word is a reminder of that anti-egalitarianism.

So, yeah. Since you asked…

Well this is why I cannot stand organised religion and am an agnostic.

All religions believe they are the one true religion, even within the Abrahamic circles. Your Catholic mate doesn't like the gentile would because it degrades his religion. Similarly I expect that he doesn't like the Koran based Kafir word for the same reason. I also suspect that he hates Jehovah's Witnesses because they believe they have the only one true interpretation of Christianity.

It's hypocrisy at it's best IMO. Firstly, gentile is a race based word as much as it is religious. Catholicism is not a definer of ethnicity. It is a faith and only a faith. Furthermore, in order for your friend's objections to fly we would have to accept the notion that Catholicism is a religion which sees itself as entirely equal to all other faiths. We certainly know that not to be true.

Finally, as was suggested above, how does he feel about homosexuals? It leaves a bit of a sour taste in the mouth to hear someone complaining about the word gentiles while endorsing a religion that views homsexuality as an abomination.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

Plus, this goes back to what was debated earlier of the course of the past two days. That because the attitude is that if the predominantly gentile fan base is somehow doing us a favour by sticking up for us, it ceases to be offensive. It's exactly the same as listen to a crowd of several thousand white people calling themselves "the n*gger Army" and then claiming that they are sticking up for "our n*gger friends". That doesn't sound right to me.

I don't think that mirrors the usage of 'yid' by Spurs supporters.
What if they called themselves 'the n*gger army' and said they did it to stick up for "our black friends"?

Makes no difference to me. Nigger is an offensive word that will offend sections of the black community in the present day. End of.

 

[Coalhada]

Well, I'm glad there turned out to be a single, simple answer to the whole question.

 

[Éperons]

How does he feel about homosexuality?

I don't suspect that is at all germane, as it has nothing to do with why someone might consider 'Gentile' to be an offensive word. I don't subscribe to his theology. I just think I do a reasonable job of describing it.

Even if he were 'against' homosexuality, or considered homosexual acts sinful, it still does not change the fact that, in the RCC, every human being has the potential for Grace. No one is damned from day 1. To me, that sounds like a radical egalitarianism that some other mainstream European religions have no interest in matching. Whether the RCC lives up to the standard of maintaining that theory is something I don't particularly care about and, again, is not germane.

That said, I do know that he was vocal in pushing his Catholic organization to drop its campaign supporting discrimination against homosexuals, specifically in the context of a campaign against civil unions for homosexual couples. He has been so far, unfortunately, unsuccessful. His reasoning is that it should not be the Church's business whom the State recognizes as being worth certain tax benefits and other privileges earned as a consequence of marriage. On this, I fully agree with him.