Matthew Syed has done a very Syedesque thing (via Mediawatch)
It’s not like Matthew Syed to place his person moral compass over a burning sporting issue whether it fits or not, using it to tell us why, actually, we’re wrong. Aside: It’s exactly like him.
On Wednesday, Syed reveals that he has deliberated and cogitated over Eni Aluko’s accusations of racism against England women’s manager Mark Sampson.
Sampson is being hounded out of his job by ‘Twitter hysteria’, you see. Despite plenty of people arguing with no elements of hysteria that they are alarmed by the incidents we have heard about and deeply concerned by the additional accusations of bullying and subsequent weak internal investigations. Blame the trolls, even if they aren’t trolls.
As so often with Syed, it’s difficult not to just stare at the piece as a whole while shouting internally: ‘IS THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENING?’, but we’ll try and get over that. We’re not Twitter hysterics, you see:
‘So, on the basis of what we have seen so far, this “scandal” is based upon two comments, one of which was judged not to have been made, and the other of which is rather innocuous.’
No and no. This scandal is based upon two comments and general concerns about other accused behaviour, including bullying, discrimination and victimisation. Secondly, the term ‘rather innocuous’ is the opinion of the author, which is a little rich when we’re being told off for apparently not being subjective. Strong start.
‘The ebola comment could have been a misjudged joke, assuming it was actually said, which Sampson denies. It might have reflected genuine fear, given that the ebola outbreak was at its height at the time. Either way, to call this a “racism” storm is to trivialise racism.’
For those unaware, Sampson is accused of ‘joking’ with Aluko that he hoped that members of her family coming over from Nigeria were not bringing Ebola with them. Given that Aluko – and the PFA – describe it as a racist joke, the idea of it being a reflection of Sampson’s ‘genuine fear’ is ludicrous. He is also accused of joking that another mixed-race player had been in trouble with the Police. She had not.
It might well have been a misjudged joke; a misjudged racist joke. Calling it as such is not ‘trivialising racism’, because there is not a league table. Nor is there a big file in which we keep racist actions and words that will get too full if we don’t ignore some incidents of racism. ‘Actually, calling this racism out to be racism damages the fight against real racism’ is nonsense.
For the record, Syed describes how ‘ebola outbreak was at its height at the time’. Actually, Sampson made that comment in November 2014. Nigeria was declared ebola-free in October 2014. Misjudged and ill-informed, then.
It’s important to add here that Syed clarifies his view in the comments section:
‘I don’t think the Ebola comment was inappropriate per se. Context is crucial, here.’
So there we have it. Even aside from the racism, Syed doesn’t even believe that the ebola joke was inappropriate, despite being made from a boss to someone beneath them, and despite the recipient of the joke being offended and hurt.
Syed then spends a few paragraphs telling us how racism used to be worse in the past so we shouldn’t call out this kind of incident now, just like women shouldn’t expect equal pay because they didn’t used to be allowed to vote and now they are.
It includes an anecdote about his own past where a teacher he liked made a racist joke, but Syed forgave him because ‘I judged the sentence not by its content but within the wider panorama of what I knew about Mr Charters: his decency, kindness and hatred of bigotry.’
Here’s the thing Matthew: that’s fine. In that incident you contextualised the comment made in its wider context. But isn’t that exactly what Aluko has also done, but making a different conclusion based on her own evidence? She was there; you weren’t.
‘Sampson’s comments apparently trended last week, which confirms my opinion of what a shallow medium Twitter can be. Some say that the reputation of the England women’s coach will never recover.’
And some say that a person in a position of authority should have thought of that before making a racist joke about a player’s family (and that’s without touching on the allegations of bullying).
‘Perhaps the most troubling thing of all is that so many young people are among those who rush to be vicariously offended by remarks that have not been substantiated, still less contextualised.’
Yes, the troubling thing in all this is not the accusations of institutional racism, but people being offended at racist jokes. Keep fighting that good fight.
The irony in Syed telling us that it is important to know the context the line was issued in before attacking Sampson in a piece defending Sampson without knowing the context the line was issued in is not lost on Mediawatch. Again, Aluko was there; he was not. Perhaps we should take her view on it.
‘Some might say that Sampson’s remark must have been bigoted since Aluko claimed to have been hurt by it. I have some sympathy with this view but offence alone cannot be sufficient to establish guilt. This would be to place too much weight on the perspective of the victim and not enough on the accused. In a world where subjective offence was taken as prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, normal communication would shut down, for who would dare say anything at all?’
The classic Syed, the verbal flounce. What is the world coming to if people in positions of authority can’t make racist jokes without fear of retribution? Next they will stop us telling ’Knock knock’ for fear of hurting the door’s feelings, won’t they? It’s political correctness gone mad.
Mediawatch has a general rule of thumb that doesn’t stop us ‘daring to say anything at all’: don’t say things that would generally be considered as offensive and don’t say things that could quite clearly be construed as racist. And if you are going to say them, don’t be surprised when people call you out on it.
On Wednesday, Syed reveals that he has deliberated and cogitated over Eni Aluko’s accusations of racism against England women’s manager Mark Sampson.
Sampson is being hounded out of his job by ‘Twitter hysteria’, you see. Despite plenty of people arguing with no elements of hysteria that they are alarmed by the incidents we have heard about and deeply concerned by the additional accusations of bullying and subsequent weak internal investigations. Blame the trolls, even if they aren’t trolls.
As so often with Syed, it’s difficult not to just stare at the piece as a whole while shouting internally: ‘IS THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENING?’, but we’ll try and get over that. We’re not Twitter hysterics, you see:
‘So, on the basis of what we have seen so far, this “scandal” is based upon two comments, one of which was judged not to have been made, and the other of which is rather innocuous.’
No and no. This scandal is based upon two comments and general concerns about other accused behaviour, including bullying, discrimination and victimisation. Secondly, the term ‘rather innocuous’ is the opinion of the author, which is a little rich when we’re being told off for apparently not being subjective. Strong start.
‘The ebola comment could have been a misjudged joke, assuming it was actually said, which Sampson denies. It might have reflected genuine fear, given that the ebola outbreak was at its height at the time. Either way, to call this a “racism” storm is to trivialise racism.’
For those unaware, Sampson is accused of ‘joking’ with Aluko that he hoped that members of her family coming over from Nigeria were not bringing Ebola with them. Given that Aluko – and the PFA – describe it as a racist joke, the idea of it being a reflection of Sampson’s ‘genuine fear’ is ludicrous. He is also accused of joking that another mixed-race player had been in trouble with the Police. She had not.
It might well have been a misjudged joke; a misjudged racist joke. Calling it as such is not ‘trivialising racism’, because there is not a league table. Nor is there a big file in which we keep racist actions and words that will get too full if we don’t ignore some incidents of racism. ‘Actually, calling this racism out to be racism damages the fight against real racism’ is nonsense.
For the record, Syed describes how ‘ebola outbreak was at its height at the time’. Actually, Sampson made that comment in November 2014. Nigeria was declared ebola-free in October 2014. Misjudged and ill-informed, then.
It’s important to add here that Syed clarifies his view in the comments section:
‘I don’t think the Ebola comment was inappropriate per se. Context is crucial, here.’
So there we have it. Even aside from the racism, Syed doesn’t even believe that the ebola joke was inappropriate, despite being made from a boss to someone beneath them, and despite the recipient of the joke being offended and hurt.
Syed then spends a few paragraphs telling us how racism used to be worse in the past so we shouldn’t call out this kind of incident now, just like women shouldn’t expect equal pay because they didn’t used to be allowed to vote and now they are.
It includes an anecdote about his own past where a teacher he liked made a racist joke, but Syed forgave him because ‘I judged the sentence not by its content but within the wider panorama of what I knew about Mr Charters: his decency, kindness and hatred of bigotry.’
Here’s the thing Matthew: that’s fine. In that incident you contextualised the comment made in its wider context. But isn’t that exactly what Aluko has also done, but making a different conclusion based on her own evidence? She was there; you weren’t.
‘Sampson’s comments apparently trended last week, which confirms my opinion of what a shallow medium Twitter can be. Some say that the reputation of the England women’s coach will never recover.’
And some say that a person in a position of authority should have thought of that before making a racist joke about a player’s family (and that’s without touching on the allegations of bullying).
‘Perhaps the most troubling thing of all is that so many young people are among those who rush to be vicariously offended by remarks that have not been substantiated, still less contextualised.’
Yes, the troubling thing in all this is not the accusations of institutional racism, but people being offended at racist jokes. Keep fighting that good fight.
The irony in Syed telling us that it is important to know the context the line was issued in before attacking Sampson in a piece defending Sampson without knowing the context the line was issued in is not lost on Mediawatch. Again, Aluko was there; he was not. Perhaps we should take her view on it.
‘Some might say that Sampson’s remark must have been bigoted since Aluko claimed to have been hurt by it. I have some sympathy with this view but offence alone cannot be sufficient to establish guilt. This would be to place too much weight on the perspective of the victim and not enough on the accused. In a world where subjective offence was taken as prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, normal communication would shut down, for who would dare say anything at all?’
The classic Syed, the verbal flounce. What is the world coming to if people in positions of authority can’t make racist jokes without fear of retribution? Next they will stop us telling ’Knock knock’ for fear of hurting the door’s feelings, won’t they? It’s political correctness gone mad.
Mediawatch has a general rule of thumb that doesn’t stop us ‘daring to say anything at all’: don’t say things that would generally be considered as offensive and don’t say things that could quite clearly be construed as racist. And if you are going to say them, don’t be surprised when people call you out on it.
Comment