“Lost its meaning.” “Growing doubts over its impact.” Well, I suppose we can allow a little face-saving rhetoric under the circumstances. Anyone not committed to the bit knew from the start that taking the knee for a moment before kickoff to signal “no room for racism” was always a meaningless gesture, the human-shaped equivalent of a bumper sticker which advertises virtue while changing no one’s mind. The gesture’s only value was as a media spectacle, allowing viewers to get the warm fuzzies over the thought that “something is being done.” The media-savvy are especially addicted to symbolism, spectacle, and slogans; they consistently overrate the power of narrative to change recalcitrant facts about the world. Can’t prove a negative and all that, but I feel reasonably confident that no racist has ever gone to a match intending to make monkey noises at a black player, only to rethink his life choices after encountering the powerful sight of men touching their knees to the turf for two seconds.
But because this is a media spectacle, the media set the tone. This is what good people do to show they’re against racism. Why would you not do it? Only a racist could possibly have a problem with this. Are you a racist, then? When did you stop throwing bananas at black players? The possibility that a skeptic could be both against racism and convinced that the knee gesture is ineffective and irrelevant is not allowed into discussion.
And there’s another angle that isn’t admitted to the conversation: if we devote a moment before the game to an anti-racist gesture, where does it end? Couldn’t the anti-sexist campaigners feel aggrieved and demand equal time for their cause? And what about the anti-animal-abuse campaigners? And the children’s welfare representatives? And and and and and the list of worthy causes goes on and on, until the players have to spend three hours doing semaphore before the actual match to demonstrate their solidarity with all the causes that right-minded people absolutely, unquestioningly support. “And now the players will stand on their heads for thirty seconds to show support for the recent victims of civil war in Ackserbanterstan. Following that, in recognition of the appalling conditions endured by battery hens, the players will flap their elbows solemnly for thirty seconds. This will be followed by a coordinated demonstration against human trafficking, during which the players will lock arms and shuffle sideways. Kickoff, originally scheduled for three o’clock, is now expected sometime before sunset.” Where is the line, and who decides where to draw it?
Of course, they are trying to bypass any debate by simply affixing a shared ritual into place. This is what good people do. But this isn’t some organic movement that grew from matchgoing fans. It was always a top-down, artificial, corporate PR ritual imposed from without, and imported from American football at that, adding a sort of quasi-colonial humiliation on top of it all (Fookin’ ‘ell, why are we imitating the bloody Yanks in our own fookin’ sport?) And now the trickster god who loves us and wants us to be amused has arranged for several black players to finally call bullshit on the entire charade.
A funny aside: Marc Guehi has been controversial with regard to protests before, because he wrote “I Love Jesus” on his rainbow captain’s armband when he played for Crystal Palace. After the FA reminded him that religious messages on playing equipment were prohibited (apparently, it’s acceptable for footballers to become walking billboards for moral causes, provided the marketing department approves the copy), he wore another one saying “Jesus loves you.” He described his message as one of love and inclusivity. The FA declined to punish him, which angered a lot of progressive fans who saw him as a religiously-motivated bigot. So now he has angered both the anti-homophobia and anti-racist contingents. Guehi represents the individual conscience, a cause which no one seems eager to champion. We admire individuals who refuse to conform to convictions we don’t share. When someone refuses to conform to our convictions, the romance of principled dissent evaporates quickly.
But it again raises the question: why do we have to force players to submit to ideological loyalty oaths before we can just watch them play? I couldn’t care less what any of them think! Most of them are sheltered morons who have been raised in the sporting equivalent of a Skinner box before being turned into multi-millionaires in their twenties! I just want to watch them chase and kick a ball! Sport is one of the few remaining activities that can unite people around a clearly defined, limited purpose, without requiring them to agree about the meaning of life. Naturally, then, it has been has been invaded by the same moralistic busybodies who gravitate to captive audiences like a Labrador to a stranger’s crotch.