Thank you for your post. I haven't the time to respond to all on here, or indeed all your points but I thought your response was well balanced and has given me food for thought.
In answer to why have I "self appointed" I just felt the need to do something. The subject has been debated at length on some other Palace forums, such as the BBS , with the majority feeling the same way as me. So far we have over 60 followers who feel strong enough about the subject to come alongside.
It was also discussed during last season with the club by the fans advisory board, following incidents. So this is by no means exclusive to me.
I am also in contact with another club's hierarchy and their fans who has or had similar problems to see if there are lessons learnt or a way forward we could adopt.
I agree that the proportion of fans who may have racist views is proportionly low, but some, maybe an equally organised group, seem intent on publishing their views.
You could argue that this movement is a response to them. Without the chants, attacks, salutes, flags and stickers there would be no reason for our existence. You can discuss the merits of the latter two, but the Mateta chants, attacks, salutes? Can you or anyone really justify them as anything other than racist?
Yes we could be inadvertently putting minorities from our area from attending by highlighting our concerns. That's a danger I grant you. Alternatively we could be making it safer to attend. Attendance from minorities at Selhurst is already low.
Of course I will review where we go with this on an ongoing basis.
Thanks for your time.
Thanks for coming back to me.
I wouldn’t defend the reported Mateta chant (although again, I hadn’t heard of it at all before you started this thread, which maybe says something about its frequency and popularity). I certainly wouldn’t defend attacks and so on. I don’t think many people, including on here, would. I am sure that concern about such incidents is far from exclusive to you. I would be concerned, too.
That’s not the issue, though. The issue is, who are you (with respect) to decide there is a wider problem, identify its extent (including what constitutes racism) and what to do about it, on behalf of Palace fans?
Hence my concern about your self-appointment. Where are the checks and balances? Who decides if you have gone too far? Or been unreasonable? More to the point, who gave you the mandate? I am a Palace fan, I didn’t ask you to speak for me, and I don’t wish you to. Does that not matter?
They say that wanting to be a politician should prohibit you from being one, and I have to say I think perhaps the same is true of activists. On one hand, thank God we have people in the world who care enough to act. On the other hand, though, having sufficient strength of feeling to start a group doesn’t suggest sufficient distance from the issue to appraise it in a balanced way. Very little of what you have posted suggests you are an exception.
You say that whether the flags and stickers are racist can be debated, but you obviously hadn’t debated that at all, even in your own mind. In fact,
especially not in your own mind. You hadn’t even
considered the prospect that a reasonable person might see things differently to you.
Someone posted a photo of the previous (Asian) Prime Minister advocating ‘Stop the Boats’. That’s how mainstream, and removed from race, the view can be. Yet it hadn’t occurred to you that it could be anything other than racist. Does that not suggest that you are operating in an echo chamber, and illustrate the inherent risks in activism? That you care isn't in doubt, but neither is it an adequate qualification, much less a justification for such wilful ignorance.
Even now, your evidence base includes chants, flags, and stickers. Personally, I wouldn’t chant in support of Tommy Robinson, or about boats, or wave a flag or produce a sticker to that effect, but I wouldn’t presume to label those who do as racist, and lump them in with what, from what I can establish, is a limited (though unwelcome) handful of unpleasant incidents to create a wider narrative. Your approach lacks intellectual credibility. It simply speaks of fixed-position dogma rather than an objective analysis and data set.
You say “some fans, maybe an equally organised group, seem intent on publishing their views”. If you mean pro-Robinson, stop the boats, refugees unwelcome views, then I would rather not hear them at the games, either. The difference between us is that I can see it’s not my place to prevent freedom of speech, or to wilfully mislabel it as a crime, just because I don’t like it.
None of this mean you just accept things you see to be wrong. Nobody should. But as others have said, there are already authorities, backed by the power of law, to whom individual incidents can be reported. It’s not like starting a group is the only option. The difference however is that, for their faults, at least the authorities are publicly accountable and are supposed to operate from a non-political standpoint. None of these things could be said of your group.
Finally from me on this: I have no dog in the left/right squabble. My concern is over the contest between reason, accountability, and intellectual substance, including self-awareness in one corner, and the absence of them in the other. Human history is full of occasions where activists genuinely occupied the moral and intellectual high ground, rather than the powers that be. That doesn't mean, however, that just being an activist is enough to occupy the moral high ground. That territory is reserved for those who think carefully, do the work, and are alert to the possibility they might be wrong.
England
www.bbc.co.uk
Ireland
USA
Scotland
