I remember as a kid hearing the monkey chants on tv every time a black player got the ball. I remember John Barnes' first few Merseyside derbies and the level of abuse was frightening, more so than normal. I didn't start going to Anfield regularly until the 1990 / 1991 season so can't comment on what it was the atmosphere was like before then.

There is a small piece in the Nick Hornby book Fever Pitch where he states that some of Liverpool's away support in the game vs Arsenal in 1987 (ie, Barnes' debut) were throwing bananas onto the pitch. This was picked up by a Liverpool fanzine later and absolutely denied. People argue that Barnes had such an incredible start to his Liverpool career in such a wonderful team, perhaps the most exciting Liverpool team ever, that it would have been almost impossible to abuse him.

You must read Out Of His Skin http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0954013417/qid=1115883921/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-7871165-3414832
which looks at the player's arrival on Merseyside and resulting reaction. The author, Dave Hill, is not too complimentary about Liverpudlians and certainly links good play and an aversion to confronting sensitive issues as a reason why Barnes was so excepted, ie, "he's one of us now".

What has been interesting recently that Barnes has spoken out quite vociferously on the Madrid stadium racism, something that was noticeable in its absence during his playing days. I suspect he didn't want to be seen as "politically" involved with such issues that would have caused a rift between him and his team mates. His upbringing was unique too - father high up in the Jamaican army; sheltered, disciplined background on the base etc.

Interesting point made on that forum about what it would have been like if Diouf had been the first major black player instead of Barnes.

After your last major book recommendation (which I posted on to Speedy by the way), I'll be taking you up on this recommendation too. Cheers.

I'm just wondering if it really matters whether it was racially motivated or not. Just spitting on someone, for whatever reason, simply shows disdain, even hate. You just don't do things like that to someone, no matter how you feel about them.

It's hate, yes. And the UK does have hate crime legislation, but it only covers racial discrimination. So in this particular case in England, whether it was racially motivated or not could be said to matter legally, i.e. it could only be treated as a hate crime if it was racially motivated. On the other hand, because it was clearly a hate crime that could be seen as being racially motivated and thus prosecuted successfully using that argument, it matters little whether or not it was actually racially motivated or not. And this is the benefit of having hate crime legislation.

Kind of confusing, that, but you see what I mean.

to fight against racism, to go on http://my.nphoto.net/racism/