Originally Posted by
dejavoodoo44
I’d thought that I’d start the thread differently this week, by writing an extended post about the Buddy booing. Largely because a few times earlier in the week, I started writing long replies to other posts, only to run out of time. So, I thought that I’d save a few of the ideas and try to later cobble them together into some sort of coherent argument. Which means that if you just here to lightly peruse the usual collection of snarky humour and half-baked ideas, then you can safely ignore the rest of this post.
Anyway, I think that there’s a lot to discuss. Firstly, there’s the ‘is it racism or not’ discussion, but of more interest to me, is how that discussion has featured some common media themes, that all tend to confuse the issue. Things like false equivalence, whataboutery, the rush to claim victimhood and self-centred commentators making it all about themselves.
To start with false equivalence, which is clouding the issue, by claiming that things that aren’t really the same are the same. Which in this case, is treating all booing as the same thing and then making argument that people should be either be against all booing or just quietly accept all its manifestations. Which to me is a nonsense, and to demonstrate, I’ll use an only vaguely related example. For instance, holding someone by the head and repeatedly punching them with all your might, would actually be quite noble, if it involved disarming someone on a killing spree in a shopping mall. Alternatively, if the same action was part of an UFC fight, many people would find it acceptable, while a significant few would find it unacceptable. Working down, if the violence occurred on a football field, perhaps a majority would find it unacceptable, while a minority would be entertained. While if it was a professional sportsman inflicting that on a random woman in a bar, then there would be almost universal condemnation. But of course, no one would really claim that if you accept the same violent action in one situation, then you’re obliged to accept it in all situations. However, there seems to be a prevalent idea that you either have to accept or reject all booing.
Which is probably a good place to start discussing which types of booing, that I personally have no problems with and what I find problematic. The two that I’m most okay with, are booing a player that constantly stages for free kicks and booing someone who has carried out an act of illegal violence on a member of your team. Both reactions stem from a feeling that an injustice has occurred, and that you want to express your feelings about that injustice, in a way that’s more immediate than later complaining to your friends or writing an indignant letter to the editor. If many other supporters also boo at the same time, then you tend to feel both somewhat vindicated and part of a larger group. Though of course, the feeling that you’re part of a group, probably leads to the sort of booing that I find tiresome. For instance, Collingwood supporters on the weekend booed every free kick against them and every opposition player that took a set shot. And they’re not the only supporters that boo ex-players years after they left the club. All of which many people would defend as showing commitment to your team and your fellow fans, but personally, I find more like witnessing a constant childish tantrum. Then there’s the booing that I really dislike: the downright racist crap that afflicted the latter end of the career of Adam Goodes and is possibly now afflicting the end of Buddy’s career.
But how to differentiate between what may just be dodgy group behaviour and race baiting? I guess one way would be for reporters to ask people why they were booing, or at least take note of what they’re posting online or saying on sports radio. Although, that could run into the problem, that even the most racist of people, generally know that saying overtly racist stuff is largely frowned upon. But I think it would be sort of worthwhile, to ascertain if they could come up with reasons that don’t come across as totally puerile. For instance, I don’t think, “Oh, he stages for free kicks”, would really cut it, as I suspect that it’s generally thought that he gets less frees than he deserves. Nor am I impressed with the idea that Collingwood fans were booing, because he’s a highly paid player who isn’t really performing. I mean, I don’t think that’s any real concern of opposition fans*. If anyone should be upset with that, it's us Swans fans, and as far as I know, it’s not us that’s booing. Perhaps slightly more convincing, is the idea that with many people struggling with the financial pressures of higher mortgage rates or rent increases, they are becoming resentful of highly paid sports stars. But if that’s the case, why just Buddy? Why not other stars of the game, a fair few of whom are probably now raking in more cash than him? So, I guess what I’m saying, is that there needs to be some clear headed analysis of whether there’s anything vaguely legitimate going on, or is it an actual racist core, leading a chorus of easily influened people who are already spending much of the game booing?
Unfortunately, instead of clear analysis, we’ve already had media types muddying the waters. For instance, Matthew Lloyd and Wayne Carey were quick out of the blocks to claim that because they were booed as players, then there’s nothing wrong with what’s happening now. They both also claimed that it was really only champions that were booed, so Buddy should just take it as a compliment. Which seems to me a somewhat narcissistic rewriting of both the past and present. While my memory can be a bit dodgy at times, I suspect the main reason that Lloyd got booed, was his habit of throwing himself on the ground after little or no contact, in order to milk frees. I mean, he wasn’t called the dive bomber for nothing. And with Carey, I can’t remember if the drug fuelled rampages came while his career was still going, but I can recall that there was the matter of him sleeping with his captain’s wife. Which may have offended a few people? Anyway, I don’t think either of them has added much to the discussion.
Another somewhat narcissistic modern media trend is the rush to claim victimhood. Which tends to follow the lines of opinionated columnist, politician, commentator, etc, saying something ill-informed or obnoxious. When someone more informed than them points that out, they tend not to gratefully acknowledge the error of their ways. Instead, they invariably claim that they are being silenced: usually by some sort of left-wing elite. And thus, an attempt to correct the record or add to the debate, is transformed into an attack on free speech. I think the absurdity of the process was demonstrated during the Goodes saga. After Adam became Australian of the year, some high-profile media types, such as Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and Alan Jones took exception to him making a few mild comments about indigenous disadvantage. I don’t think it was any coincidence that the booing then started. Later, when efforts were made to put it back in the bottle, those efforts were labelled as the elites of the game trying to curtail the right of those attending the games to freely voice an opinion. Essentially, rabid persecution of an individual apparently came under the protection of free speech. Indigenous person talking about indigenous issues; not so much. As far as I know, I don’t think those commentators have gotten involved in the Buddy issue, but there’s already a dodgy free speech element. That is, because all types of booing have been conflated, some people have made the erroneous claim that the AFL or whoever, wants to ban booing and therefore stop the average fan from freely expressing themselves. Which is the sort of claim that I’m hopeful can be countermanded with some clear action.
And what sort of action do I think should be taken? Well, I was pleased with the Collingwood statement. Which I thought made it clear that while they appreciated the passionate support of their fans, they didn’t appreciate the targeting of an opposition player for no good reason. And if things continue, I think it will be important that other clubs make similar statements. Which did actually help during the Goodes saga, as there was a difference in behaviour from club to club, with Bulldogs fans being perhaps the most well behaved, probably because Bulldogs players like Bob Murphy proactively condemned the booing. Conversely, I’m not really sure what the AFL administration can do, since it’s largely seen as an affluent boy’s club. So, it would possibly come across as an elite preaching to the masses. Though I suppose that they and the clubs could make it clear what’s involved. That is, not all booing is the same and that they have absolutely no intention of banning all booing, and that while might people think that they’re passionately supporting their club or standing up for their rights, what they’re really doing if they keep mindlessly booing a champion for no good reason, is actively supporting the small racist elements, which are unfortunately still a part of the supporter base of probably every club.
*Another one in the series of how not to win on Millionaire Hot Seat.
“So, what are you going to do if you win one million dollars!!?”
“Well, to be honest, Eddie, I don’t think that’s any of your @@@@ing business.”
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks