To offend or not to offend, that Is the question

  • by Raedwulf
  • Filed: Thursday, 26th February 2015

"Man offended on behalf of someone else reports incident he didn't see or hear", wrote Staff. It sets up the expectation that the article is going to be wholly dismissive of the current kerfuffle about some idiotic chanting at White Hart Lane last Sunday.

Since the article, actually well-written, did nothing of the sort, it invites people to mis-read it. KUMB, 99 times out of a hundred (at least), is better than that. If it was in the habit of sneering and mocking, I wouldn't hang around here (which, I daresay, might please some of you!).

For what little my opinion is worth: As far as this sort of thing goes, I have lived my life by the dictum "If you are not trying to cause offence, there is nothing for me to be offended at; if you are trying to cause offence, I'm not going to give you the satisfaction." In fact, in the latter case, I'll probably just laugh in your face because that'll annoy you, so I win twice over. I'm nasty like that.

I was bullied, mostly verbally, a fair bit in my teens because I was a bit different from most people. I still am a bit different, I suppose. I grew up, as a consequence, with a loathing of bullying, a sharp tongue, and a thick skin!

There is a big difference between those who accidentally offend, and those who try deliberately to do so. They SHOULD, in my opinion, be challenged. Unless that happens, nothing ever improves.

On an individual level, back then anybody that tried verbals with me came off worst. Usually with other kids laughing at them, not me, so it tended not to go on for very long, and most kids learned not to try it at all.

It perhaps wasn't the best defence in all situations, but it worked reliably enough to become a habit I've sometimes regretted since. Nevertheless, the point is that they were trying to offend and they were challenged. I wasn't offended, but neither did I give in to them, thereby allowing them to think it was OK or, worse, encouraging them to do it more.

The interesting thing about the discussion that's ensued on the article is that, up to the time I write this (around 6PM the same day), no-one has said it's alright to use that particular word and, most especially, no-one has suggested that it would be alright to use it to someone who has Down's Syndrome.

Let me back up slightly. The offensive word in question was "mong", directed at Harry Kane because he has a speech impediment (apparently; I've never listened to an interview). You're probably well aware of that.

According to my Oxford English dikker, mong is an Australian informal abbreviation of mongrel - which is complete nonsense to anyone who grew up in the East End up until the 1980s at least. "Mong" meant not just "thick" but "thick and you can't help it". It's an abbreviation of mongoloid, which is the term used to describe Down's Syndrome up until at least the 1970s.

It was the term that the eponymous Dr Down himself used back in the 19th century. In my day, I never knew anyone who had it; they were, for better or worse, separated from us in special needs schools. As an insult, it was fairly mild, not much worse than calling someone "thick".

Nowadays, we speak of Down's Syndrome. No-one uses, or thinks it is acceptable to use, "mongoloid" to describe those affected by Down's Syndrome, any more than anyone thinks "spastic" is appropriate for that group (and, yes, Joey Deacon cropped up in the discussion on the article). Or "flid", if it comes to that. I'm slightly surprised to find mong is still sufficiently current to have been used.

You'll notice I don't say "sufferers", by the way. I still don't know any, but most everything I've ever seen or read suggests that Down's don't suffer very much - it seems they tend to be much happier, friendlier, and more positive than so-called "normal" folk.

Which brings me back to the discussion on the article. There's a bit of "Man up! Grow a pair!" been going on. But the discussion has mostly been about the nature of offence, whose fault it is if someone gets offended, and so on.

As you may gather from my earlier remarks, I'd not argue that everyone needs to learn to deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Also, the brickbats and unfriendly "compliments" that will come from your fellows.

However, I'd also point out that part of manning up and growing a pair isn't just developing rhinoceros hide and aggression to match. Part of it is also recognising that alongside your "right" of free speech (which has also been cited) is your duty to think about what you are saying and how you are saying it.

Part of it is recognising that how you act impacts the world around you. That it is your responsibility, and it matters. If you really think you can swan along how you please, screw everyone else, don't complain when the world, or someone in it, comes along and screws you. It probably will happen.

So, on the one hand, yes there are those who react at very slight provocations; those deservedly, I think, labelled the "PC brigade". If a bloke calls a lass "love" or "dear", he almost certainly isn't being sexist (and some would no doubt try to tell me that "lass" is sexist). It's just the way he talks.

On the other hand, there are an awful lot of words that I could list. You can think of many yourselves. Someone using those words is setting out to offend, especially when it's dozens of someones in a football crowd yelling it. This isn't just a matter of some people being over-sensitive. There are two sides to every coin; the flip side of this one is "insensitive". And if it's done deliberately? That's beyond insensitive...

The irony of all this, of course, is that "mong" in the informal, insulting sense was a perfectly good word for Sunday. Not for Harry Kane, however he sounds. Certainly not for anyone with Down's, if they were unfortunate enough to hear the chant and connect it with themselves.

"Harry Kane talks like a mong and plays like one too." For crying out loud! The average school playground could do better than that. I'm not, in any case, a fan of trying to wind up the opposition. I can't recall seeing a sportsman play worse because of anything shouted at him by the crowd.

But that? No, "mong" applies perfectly to all the "thick and you can't help it" fans who thought it was a good word to use. As a chant, that was so pathetic, it'd need a stepladder to reach "feeble". You can laugh with your equally thick mates down the pub about all the attention you've garnered, and massage each other's egos all you want.

But all you've done is attract a bucketload of negative publicity to West Ham. The sort of publicity that no club needs, let alone wants. It wasn't clever, it wasn't even funny. On Sunday, the "mongs" at White Hart Lane were those chanting the word. I wonder, any of you bright, brave lads want to publicly explain why you were doing it?

So was Kilbane right to complain about it? Despite KUMB's headline, yes I think so. Unless behaviour like this is challenged, it will not change.

In this particular instance, there's little practical that can be done. Whatever Kilbane thinks, it's a relatively minor offence. Half the idiots chanting on Sunday probably don't even know why the word "mong" means "thick", or that some would find it particularly offensive.

Frankly, a lot probably wouldn't care, they'd just sneer, and cry "Man up! Grow a pair! It was only a bit of fun!" Well, it was neither funny nor fun for a lot of people. Maybe whoever it is that makes up these chants should have a little think about that?

Nevertheless, there's not a lot the FA can realistically do. You can't realistically expect a club to control its fans to this extent, nor can you fairly punish the vast majority for the actions of a minority that few fans welcome, or recognise as their own.

But, hopefully, by continuing to challenge such behaviour, as it should be, it can continue to be reduced. Football stadia were far more intimidating places in past decades. If "mong" is now the cause of column inches in the national media, how far we have advanced.

May we continue to.

* Like to share your thoughts on this article? Please visit the KUMB Forum to leave a comment.

* Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the highlighted author/s and do not necessarily represent or reflect the official policy or position of KUMB.com.


More Opinion