‘I’d rather wear a turban than a rose’: a case study of the ethics of chanting

Abstract

In this paper we explore the moral status of a chant overheard during the Wales versus England (men’s) rugby union international match in February, 2005. The specific chant, sung by Welsh supporters at their English counterparts, was: ‘I’d rather wear a turban than a rose.’ Specifically, we examine: whether the chant is offensive; whether the chant is racist; the extent to which the chanters can be labelled racists; and what, if any, might be the appropriate response(s) to the chant? We argue that from an ethical perspective there is a need to provide, howsoever difficult, an account of ‘objectively’ or ‘inherently’ offensive as opposed to ‘subjectively’ or ‘contingently’ offensive. We conclude that racism registers as ‘inherently’ offensive and that the chant itself is an example of racism. Our evaluation of the chant as racist involves a normative structure containing three main elements: carriers of national identity and pride; hierarchical re‐ordering of racialized identities; and the ‘playfulness’ of parody. It is a form of discriminatory social practice that manifests itself in communication and is directed at ethnically different Others. It therefore carries manifestations of racism. However, to attach moral opprobrium equally to all of the chanters without recognizing the different possible dispositions of the chanters is inappropriate. There are different levels of moral blame‐worthiness that ought properly to be attached to those who engage in racist actions/behaviours. Finally, we argue that there ought to be an appropriate set of responses that accommodates fully the character, cultural capital and political agency of individuals and institutions. We advocate a shared responsibility for cultivating respectful attitudes and an appropriate moral response to such chanting.