The Lukaku Chant Controversy: Can Stereotype-Based Humour Ever Be Acceptable?

Continuing on from discussion in the EPL thread in relation to Manchester United fans' controversial chant about the size of Romelu Lukaku's manhood...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

What do you think yourself, Danny? Obviously the big penis thing is silly at best, but is attempted humour based on stereotypes in general to be outlawed, even if it's meant in a complimentary, even affectionate, kind of way?

...

United fans seem to go down the nationality/race route quite a bit, previously chanting about Nemanja Vidic coming from Serbia and f**king murdering ya, or Ji-Sung Park eating dogs in his home country. They were both much better than the Lukaku tripe in terms of creativity at least.

---

I don't think the Lukaku chant was malicious in nature. It seemed to be well-meaning, was sung in good spirits and I'm sure those who were singing it would never regard themselves as racist - even Lukaku himself appeared to acknowledge that aspect of the matter - but expressions or actions don't have to be intentionally malicious or consciously derogatory in order for them to be unhelpful, problematic, damaging or insidious. Racial stereotyping, however it manifests itself (even if it's through attempted humour), is undoubtedly problematic when it perpetuates harmful myths, falsehoods and assumptions as these can have real material consequences for the subjects of such stereotyping.

Obviously there's no hard and fast rule that enables us to know whether or not a particular joke or form of humour that happens to rely on a stereotype or racial theme might be "acceptable". Where do you draw the line before which you'd let a stereotype-based joke go but after which you'd pull someone up for a gag? It's an interesting question and difficult to know for certain. I guess it depends on the content and the context of the joke. Some subjects will naturally be more sensitive ones than others. The background and persona of whoever is telling a joke and (the attitude or nature of) their audience is surely also crucial, as is the level of mutual understanding, common ground and/or reciprocity between teller and audience.

I'd be inclined to look favourably upon or accept parody and satire that might happen to invoke stereotypes but strictly for the purpose of lampooning and exposing the ridiculousness of the racist assumptions or supremacist thinking that contributed to the formation and maintenance of those stereotypes in the first place. (I note this blog piece disagrees though and suggests that even racially-charged satire is automatically racist, although I do sort of get the sense the author doesn't fully comprehend what satire is, particularly as they accuse Stephen Colbert of racism on account of his satirical use of the term "ching-chong ding-dong".)

"Punching up" - laughing at the expense of authority, power and privilege - is all good, in my book, whilst I've much less time for "punching down" and making already-vulnerable minorities or the disadvantaged the butt of the joke; it's cheap, cowardly, lazy, all-too-easy and demonstrates a lack of empathy. Certain privileged young Tories seem to find humour in burning £20 notes in front of homeless people who've appealed to them for some loose change, for example. That is a rather extreme example of "punching down" and, although it doesn't necessarily invoke a stereotype, that sort of thing, to me (and, I'd imagine, most others) is just repugnant. I don't think I'd even classify it as humour.

This article contains some interesting "guidance" on how to tell if a joke based on a racial theme is racist or not and I find myself agreeing with a lot of it: https://www.dailydot.com/via/how-to-...f-joke-racist/

Some other interesting and considered views here: https://aeon.co/conversations/is-the...joke-about-191

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meagan Day

Being able to joke about social, cultural or demographic difference can be an important way to make sense of social structures and even ease sociopolitical tensions, but it’s also not hard to conjure scenarios (we’ve all witnessed them) when a joke about a sensitive subject falls flat and crosses into the territory of crude, hostile commentary.

...

So to sum up, while there are no topics that are fundamentally unacceptable to joke about, there are certainly differences in methodologies regarding joking about social difference, especially when that difference involves a power imbalance. Free speech is crucial, and we should not want to see a gag order administered to the jerk jokesters of the world, but that doesn’t mean we can’t acknowledge when a joke is being made in bad faith, or is simply bad.

---

I think it's important to acknowledge that with the right to tell offensive jokes comes the right for others to call insensitive joke-tellers out on their insulting jokes. People have a right to express outrage at offensive jokes as much as people have a right to try and provoke it. Right-wingers have a tendency to deride criticism and/or outrage as "political correctness" and claim it is undermining their freedom to express themselves; it's a disingenuous inversion of victimhood - victim-playing really - that betrays a fear of criticism and trivialises genuine victimhood. It's really just their way of trying to police the debate by discrediting legitimate scrutiny of their lazy, insulting, insensitive, inaccurate and/or ignorant ideas, which is kind of ironic - and totally hypocritical - considering policing debate is the very thing they purport to loathe so much. They ought to remember that free speech goes both ways.

I don't think it's essential that the subject of a particular racially-charged remark be personally offended in order for said remark to constitute racism (nor is the perceiving or taking of offence necessarily a sure-fire indication that racism has occurred either), but if at all necessary in order to help one come to a clearer judgment as to whether the Lukaku chant in this particular case was appropriate/"acceptable" or not, Lukaku's own opinion on the matter should help in providing some sort of instructive guidance. He said (through Manchester United's Twitter):

"Great backing since I joined MUFC. Fans have meant well with their songs but let's move on together. #RespectEachOther"

I think it's reasonable to assume from that that, whilst he accepts the fans weren't trying to insult or offend him and that the chant was most likely sung in an affectionate sense, such chanting isn't something of which he would particularly want to be the subject again. For what it's worth, Kick It Out, the anti-racism organisation, also took issue with the chant.

It's the club's call ultimately as to what sort of chanting they're happy to tolerate (or forbid) inside their own ground (if it's not already disallowed by law), but, generally-speaking, when it comes to simply banning offending parties or outlawing expression that one might find objectionable or uncomfortable, such "solutions" are not responses I favour (especially not as the first port of call) as they only silence, marginalise and ostracise people (somewhat paradoxically, in an attempt to prevent the demonisation of other people) without necessarily dealing with the actual root of the issue.

If at all possible - and I accept that often it won't be possible, particularly when it comes to explicit or unashamed racism rather than unintentional, unwitting or "casual" racism that is born more so out of ignorance - I much prefer the alternative of having an informed and educational discussion or putting into effect a process that challenges ignorance through raising awareness. As it does appear that there are still plenty of United fans in denial over the Lukaku chant's racist nature, maybe a few paragraphs in the next home match programme outlining why the chant was problematic would be a good idea. I think it would be a sensible and progressive way of dealing with it and you'd hope that supporters would take note.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Netherton's link between a stereotypical black man's big penis and sexual aggressiveness is not something that ever occurred to me I must say. That really takes the lightheartedness out of it if he's correct to make that connection.

---

The "big black penis" trope finds its roots in historical thinking that sought to "other", inferiorise and/or demonise black men, which itself harks back to a time when a smaller penis was revered as superior or as the social and aestethic ideal because it supposedly indicated that its owner was more likely to use their head and remain coolly logical in their day-to-day affairs than be led by their lusty desires. A smaller penis was seen to represent control, intellect, rationality and authority, whilst a bigger penis supposedly represented foolishness and ill-discipline. This is why most of the classical Greek or Roman sculptures depicting the nude male form - say, 'David' by Michelangelo - have small penises. Those classical statues where the subject has an enlarged penis tend to be of animal-like satyrs or of figures regarded as foolish and lustful.

Greco-Roman culture obviously informed contemporary/modern (white) European (and, by extension, American) thinking and norms to a very significant degree and I note that Peter Staunton has highlighted some examples of when the aforementioned notions with regard to the size of one's penis were deployed in prejudicial literature and film against the allegedly "inferior" black man in order to justify discrimination and brutal mistreatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Staunton

[Education] could mean pointing [Manchester United fans] in the direction of “The Birth of a Nation”, the 1915 silent film by DW Griffith which portrayed black men as dumb and sexually aggressive and worth lynching due to the threat they presented to white women.

It could mean pointing them in the direction of the literature of Dr William Lee Howard, who in 1903 wrote: “When education will reduce the large size of the Negro’s penis as well as bring about the sensitiveness of the terminal fibers which exist in the Caucasian, then will it also be able to prevent the African’s birthright to sexual madness and excess.”

---

TV Tropes discusses the trope in the following terms:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TV Tropes

Since the colonial era, there has been the idea of a well-endowed, sturdily built, and rather libidinous black man. Until the late 20th century, it was commonly accepted that black men made no effort to control their sex drives, and, in some time periods and regions, a lot of nasty stuff was done to black males on the paper-thin excuse that they had posed a sexual threat to someone, often white women. (Needless to say, very little was ever offered — or required — in proof of any of these allegations).

The stereotype of black men as oversexed is, at root, dehumanizing. These are not rational creatures like white men, it claims; these are mere animals whose sexual functions operate mechanically and instinctively like a bull in rut. Picking up on an idea found in classical Greek culture, it saddled the stereotypical black man with a comically over-sized phallus, just to show everyone what's really running the show. As for black women, they too were defined in terms of their sexual urges — early psychologists (who'd invented the term "drapetomania" in order to frame black slaves' desires to be free as a form of mental illness) would occasionally "justify" white overseers and plantation owners' rape of slave women with the claim that black women were "hot" and therefore needed their masters' sexual control. White women were also warned that too much unsupervised contact with a black man (up to and especially including sexual intercourse) would leave them Defiled Forever; and heaven help the mother of a Chocolate Baby...

In other words, this trope has some extremely dubious origins, and continues to carry all manner of Unfortunate Implications with it. You Have Been Warned.

---

This article, which explores the historical roots of the trope and how it was essentially weaponised against black men, provides some further context and insight:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Johnson II

I realize that systemically speaking my desire for a larger d*ck rests at the intersection of racism and patriarchal socialization. That is to say, I have internalized the racist notion that Black men have big dicks, which has its roots in European racism, used to justify slavery and racial oppression. This particular brand of stereotyping has been called “sexual threat” or “sexual racism.” Fear of Black male sexuality in particular is said to be a core reason for the subjugation of Black American men. Historically, Black men were described as sub-human, animalistic, and lust-driven. This reasoning concludes that Black men are a sexual threat to society and are prone to raping White women. This idea is vividly depicted within the D.W. Griffith film “Birth of a Nation”. In the film, the central Black character, Gus, aggressively pursues a White female, who ultimately jumps to her death to avoid his advances. Gus is then tried and killed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, who are heroically depicted in the film. Accusations of Black male impropriety towards White women were used to justify lynching of Black men. In one of the more notorious real life lynchings, 14-year-old African American Emmett Till, was kidnapped and brutally murdered for reportedly flirting with a White female.

Author/Professor Gail Dines accurately reported the ways in which the porn industry plays upon sexual racism. Many of the adult movies with Black men in starring roles use racial themes in the title and often as the flick’s primary selling point. Titles such as “Big Black Dicks, Little White Chicks,” and ‘There´s a Black Man in My Wife´s Ass,” are a microcosm of the porn industry´s perpetuation of Black male sexual stereotypes. In these cases the troupe includes exacerbation of the notion of Black male obsession with White females which was often used to justify lynching of Black males. Larry G. Morton II, in his article entitled: MSM, the Streets, and Lockdown: Sexual Threat and Social Dominance in America, reported that present day stereotypes such as ‘once you go black you never go back’ are examples of attempts to stigmatize Black male sexuality. Or, as Dines revealed: “From the image of the black woman as Jezebel, to the black male as savage, mainstream white representations of blacks have coded black sexuality as deviant, excessive and a threat to the white social order.”

---

In light of the historical significance of the trope, its connotations and the manner in which is has been utilised through time to degrade and subjugate men of African origin, I think to regard the chant in question as complimentary of Lukaku would be ignorant at best.

I see that United fans actually sang the chant again yesterday after Lukaku scored away to Southampton. Clearly, the message hadn't gotten through to them then and, judging by the additional chant of "We’re Man Utd, we’ll sing what we want" that followed, they see this as a case of outsiders trying to gag them because they're United fans (so they've decided to be stubborn about it) and don't appear to recognise that both Lukaku and their own club have an issue with the chant, as evidenced by the joint tweet from both player and club appealing to fans for respect and to move on. Either that or they're just being thick about it in spite of the feelings of Lukaku and the club they support.

Yesterday's chanting prompted United to make the following statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manchester United

Manchester United has a zero tolerance stance on offensive chanting and behaviour.

The club and player have been clear in asking for an end to the chant.

The club has worked with relevant bodies and supporters groups in trying to eradicate any offensive behaviour and will take further action against individuals if this continues.

The club in discussion with the police and has asked for CCTV footage from Southampton and will try to identify those who disrespected the player's wishes not to sing the song.

---

Every day I look at this site and think 'f*** me!" Danny I's got a long one.'

But that's more typing than stereotyping.:p

Fair play Danny, you went the extra mile there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

In light of the historical significance of the trope, its connotations and the manner in which is has been utilised through time to degrade and subjugate men of African origin, I think to regard the chant in question as complimentary of Lukaku would be ignorant at best.

---

I guess Netherton was spot on so.