Steven Baxter

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media

Syndicate contentRSS

"Plastic Brits": are some Olympians more worthy of a cheer than others?

Screaming about "plastic Brits" may be a rare example of the Mail getting its own readers wrong.

Plastic Brit? Mo Farah after winning a race in Oregon earlier this month.
Plastic Brit? Mo Farah after winning a race in Oregon earlier this month. Photograph: Getty Images

You could almost sense the weariness from UK athletics head coach Charles van Commenee last week when asked to comment on whether his athletes would know all the words to the national anthem in time for the London Olympics.

“They know the words, or they will,” said Van Commenee. “If they don't, somebody will make an issue of it.”

Van Commenee, himself from the Netherlands, has faced repeated sneers and whines over the authenticity of his squad ahead of the 2012 games. He is too polite to say out loud who that "somebody" is. But I’m here to remind you, if you hadn’t guessed already, that you need look no further than the usual suspects.

The Daily Mail has featured no fewer than 208 articles about "plastic Brits" in the run-up to the games. As Sunder Katwala wrote for the New Statesman earlier this year, it smacks of a strange attempt to decide who is and who isn’t British enough to be supported.

One typically klaxonic "plastic Brit" Mail article was published in March, after US-born Tiffany Porter was named captain of the women’s indoor athletics team, with the headline "NOW THE PLASTIC BRITS ARE TAKING OVER!" The appointment was described as "controversial", though no-one was quoted disagreeing with it.

There have been some comparisons to Zola Budd, the South African runner who speedily received a British passport in time to run in the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. But Budd’s lightning conversion to Britishness was a different story: this was a runner who couldn’t compete for the land of their birth due to the sporting embargo on South Africa, so chose Britain instead, with a little help from some hastily-cut red tape.

There were no such qualms at the time of Porter’s appointment about the men’s captain, Somali-born Mo Farah. The long-distance runner has made the opposite journey across the Atlantic to Porter, and is now living in the United States with his family to prepare for the Olympics. Is he more or less "British" than Porter because of that? Or do they both have equal claims to wear the Team GB colours in London?

Farah arrived as a refugee from his war-ravaged birthplace in Britain aged eight, just knowing three phrases in English: “Excuse me”, “Where is the toilet?” and “C’mon then!” but has become of the best-loved stars of Team GB, winning gold and silver medals at the Daegu World Athletics Championships last year.

He’s just one of a huge number of foreign-born sports stars to have gained huge success in Britain. England’s cricket captain, Andrew Strauss, lived in South Africa until he came to Britain aged six – his predecessor, Kevin Pietersen, also came to Britain from South Africa, aged 17. The England cricket team has a long and often successful history of nurturing talent from across the globe and making them wear three lions on their shirts.

So what’s different about Porter and the other "plastic Brits"? Like Van Commenee, perhaps it’s just a case of some newspapers attempting to press the outrage buttons of their readers by questioning "immigrants coming over here, taking our Olympic places" just as they have previously screamed about Polish plumbers or Slovakian single mums.

National identity is a complex thing, though. Lancastrian Mark Lawrenson, a Republic of Ireland international, even questioned whether Lukas Podolski was an echt [real] German during football commentary the other night. When Lewis Hamilton won the Canadian Grand Prix at the weekend, he grabbed a Union Jack in celebration – and later added that seeing Grenadian flags (his grandfather came to Britain from the Caribbean island) had inspired him too.

Maybe it doesn’t matter where you’ve come from, or where you’re going to, or what national anthem you know all the words to, but where you feel is home. "Plastic Brit" is a fairly odious term that aims to regard some Brits as being more worthy of a flag-wave or a cheer than others. Does that really represent how even Mail readers feel about Team GB? I suspect this could be one rare occasion where they have got their own readers wrong.
 

25 comments

mbrecker's picture

Be realisitc. What are you going to do then in today's global society? Cancel all dual UK citizenships and deport these people? Be openly racist and say I'm sorry, but you don't meet the specific physical requirements for being "British"? If you were daft enough to try and deport them, how would you pay for it in the current "double dip recession" (which is really a depression)?

All this proves is that the Daily Mail staff are REALLY bored out of their minds to print stuff like this.

hugh markey's picture

Just make sure these globetrotting athletes wrap themselves in the Union Jack.

Hessian

Will Hinch's picture

Have a read of my blog for some weekly irreverent nonsense

http://hinchysweeklywaffle.blogspot.co.uk/

Sam2012's picture

John Barnes was born in Jamaica and Owen Hargreaves while conceived in England was born in Canada. There may be some others. This will probably happen more in future as there is a few young players who came here as kids like Zaha at Crystal Palace or Gus Poyet's son Diego Poyet who will probably be good enough to represent the full national team. I personally don't mind as long as they have a genuine connection to England. I probably would have been ok with Arteta playing for England as he's been here a long time and played the best football of his career here and probably sees England as a second home now.

I think we need to be like the Americans and actively welcome and consider migrants as British if they want to settle here and make a contribution to our country. We've never really consciously done that as a country and it would probably help migrants integrate more seemlessly into our country like they do in America.

Dwb790's picture

My (hazy) recollection is it was the D Mail that trumpeted the case for Z Budd and got her thru "red tape" to the olympics. Hypocrisy + Daily Mail? Surely not!

toffer99's picture

Some things make you thoroughly ashamed to be British, don't they? They really make you cringe and want to curl up when someone from abroad mentions them.
For me its the Daily Mail.

Spondulicks's picture

I think this is an example of what Edward de Bono calls "red hat thinking", which is an expression of pure feeling, with no attempt to justify it. Why do so many on the left think they only have to mention the Daily Mail to win an argument? I went to see Stewart Lee the other day, and he did the very same thing. And he's otherwise intelligent.

McMac's picture

You've never read it have you?

Spondulicks's picture

Never read the Daily Mail? On the contrary, I read it every day, single-handed. I know whereof I speak.

A lot of the people who fulminate against the Mail here and on Guardian CiF seem to overlook the fact the most of the stories in it are syndicated. They just get them from an agency. They choose the ones that fit in with their own world-view, of course, and sometimes alter the phrasing or structure to get the desired emphasis, but in most cases you can read the same stories verbatim in right-on papers such as the Guardian or Independent. Don't ask me to provide examples, because I can't be bothered. Take a look; reading papers online costs nothing.

The stories about asylum-seekers being housed in £2 million mansions, or Eastern European sex-offenders who are convicted here but can't be deported, or "Travellers" who have flouted planning laws, and others of that kind -- are true. The lefties who condemn the Mail for printing this kind of story never deny that the stories are true. I can only conclude that their grievance is just that the stories are published: the Mail should shut up with its obnoxious facts.

The Mail should shut up, because it's wrong to express views contrary to these self-evident truths: mass immigration is a good thing; "Travellers" are a persecuted minority whose dismal public image is the result exclusively of settler prejudice; gay marriage, gay adoption, gay "surrogacy", and transsexuality are absolutely fine, and couldn't possibly have harmful consequences for our notions of sexual propriety or the family; black youths commit a hugely disproportionate amount of street-crime because they are poor and oppressed; the white underclass is not responsible for its behaviour (whereas the people who write for the Mail are, of course); and so on. And although the Mail is the UK's biggest-selling daily paper, and has been for many years, its views are extreme and an affront to all decent people.

I don't want to suggest that everything the Mail says is beyond question, or that its politics can't be criticised. Nothing is above criticism. But merely to write, as so many NS and CiF contributors do, "That's the kind of thing I'd expect to read in the Daily Mail", or "Why don't you go back to the Daily Mail, where you belong?", or "Are you a Daily Mail reader?" in the belief that that proves your point, or clinches your argument, is not only intellectually lazy, it shows an inability to tolerate any opinion other than one's own, and in many cases, seems to indicate that the writer can hardly even imagine that other views are tenable.

I fang you.

Hutcho's picture

The Daily Mail isn't the best selling daily newspaper, the Sun is and indeed, has been for many years, although the Daily Mail I believe is the most popular news website in the world - that's what 400 stories a day about Kim Kardashian does for you.

I agree that some of the stories they print are true but in the example of an asylum seeker in a £2 million house - it's the slant that they put on such a story that gets people's backs up. They'll inevitably angle the story so it looks like the nasty asylum seeker is milking the system and taking advantage of YOU, the good old British taxpayer when in fact an asylum seeker will have little or no choice about where they're housed.

It's also worth mentioning that a significant number of the stories they print are untrue or certainly the angle which they put on them is untrue - a couple of examples springing to mind are the story about a vent on a cafe having to be removed because it offended passing muslims (muslims were little or nothing to do with the rejecting of the retrospective planning application but the Daily Mail handily stirred up racial tensions in the area by pinning all of the blame on Muslims) and the gentleman who couldn't be deported because he owned a cat.

They also regularly dust of the old Winterval chestnut (although they're not the only ones guilty of that), they're on some hypocritical moral crusade about pornography while constantly, gratuitously printing naked flesh, their obsession with BBC bashing is embarrasing, they unjustifiably and creepily print pictures of the children of celebrities, they insist they don't print stories about celebrities being pregnant unless it has been confirmed yet completely disregard that on a daily basis, they print endless irresponsible health stories, a wealth of false EU scare stories, hysterical and nonsensical weather-related front pages, I could go on.

In summary, my objection to the Daily Mail isn't because their views differ to mine, it's because they have a loose relationship with facts to say the least and seize on minor angles in a story to be as inflammatory as possible. If they backed up assertions with incontrovertible facts, evidence, quotes and the like then fine, but they don't and many of their stories can be swiftly disproved. A quick look at blogs like Tabloid Watch will tell you that your conclusion that 'lefties' are aggrieved because the stories are published is wrong. Having said that the Daily Mail isn't the only paper worthy of criticisim on the basis of much of the above.

Spondulicks's picture

Well, here's the link to the £2 million house story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155726/Somali-family-benefits-h...

Milking the system? A family of 10 comes to Britain and claims housing benefit, income support, and perhaps other benefits. Does Britain have any historical connection to Somalia? Is Britain responsible for the current state of Somalia? Do the tax-payers of Britain have a blanket obligation to take in the wretched of other lands and pay for them to live in comfort? When so many working people here are struggling to make ends meet on the minimum wage? According to the article, £100,000 of work was done on the house to create two extra bedrooms FOR THIS FAMILY. Perhaps you have good reason to believe that this is untrue. Maybe the family doesn't have a new car, and doesn't do work on the side while claiming extravagant benefits. Maybe they will protest against being forced to live in that house by finding somewhere else to live and paying their rent out their own pocket rather than other people's. Perhaps the "slant" is all wrong, and there is a positive interpretation to be put on the story. Like "Only in America!" But "Only in Britain!" seems to come with a built-in connotation of a quite different kind. Then again, the story doesn't seem to be trying hard enough to be anti. It claims that "the family are understood to pay the council just over £1,000 a month in rent," though earlier in the article it states that "The family use housing benefits to pay a heavily discounted rent." In other words, the family isn't paying the rent -- the council tax payer is.

If you know that this story is untrue in any key respects, do share your information with us.

The "vent on a cafe" isn't one of the major issues perplexing the British people, and I note that you haven't provided examples of untrue stories connected with said major issues. As for "Catgate", the outcome isn't clear, is it?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045156/Theresa-May-Ken-Clarke-c...

There is a link on the BBC news site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15174254) to the written judgement, which contains the clause (ha ha):

7. The Immigration Judge’s determination is upheld and the cat, [ ], need no longer fear having to adapt to Bolivian mice.

I haven't the time to respond to everything in your post, and I'm certainly not here as a spokesman for the Mail, but I'd like to make the point that while it does publish lots of pictures of semi-naked women, that can't be equated with pornography. Anyone in this internet age who thinks a shot of Kim Kardashian in a bikini is porn needs to wake up.

Hutcho's picture

Haha I'm not for a second suggesting that what the Daily Mail print is pornography, merely suggesting that they're on slightly shaky ground by rallying against the evils of pornography whilst endlessly printing risque shots of pop stars/celebrities, although to be honest, what's more hypocritical is the fact that they will knock up a story about how there is 'outrage' about a raunchy performance on say X-Factor and then reproduce loads of the images from it.

I'm not sure I said the story of the family in the house is untrue, so no I don't have any information that suggests it isn't. I also make no comment on the merits or otherwise of allowing people in to the UK from Somalia or whether the taxpayer should be paying for them - that's a debate for another day.

I also didn't say there was a positive angle to be had in the story - I suggested in general with these stories, and I include this one in that, the story deliberately smears the family who didn't demand to live somewhere palatial in Islington or wherever - in fact 'they don't know how they got so lucky' in this example. There could very well be a story here, although the Daily Mail version definitely relies on lots of hearsay and local tittle tattle and by their own admission they don't know an awful lot about the family but it seems to me that the ire should be directed at the council rather than the family themselves.

It's also all written in a deliberately inflammatory way to make people believe that foreigners are getting something Brits aren't - which they present no evidence for.

Ok a vent on a cafe isn't an issue perplexing most but really that's not what I was getting at and I think you know that. It was another example of the Mail's anti-muslim agenda and their attempt to instil a belief that Muslims are trying to stop others getting on with their lives. If ten people complained about something and one of them was a muslim...well I think we both know what the Mail's angle would be.

The example of Catgate looks pretty clear to me - there wasn't a refusal to deport a Bolivian man BECAUSE he had a cat - and that's Theresa May's wording, it was largely because of his relationship under article 8 of the Human Rights Act (I've seen a stack of determinations over the years to be honest and I actually do believe having seen it with my own eyes - Article 8 is sometimes misapplied), the cat part was merely used as a supporting factor in the proving that he had a family life here etc - I've no idea about the merits of his case I'm not the judge but he did enough to prove it apparently and he wasn't allowed to stay, as was implied, simply because he had a cat.

When a government minister is ignorantly repeating such nonsense in a speech I think we should be worried about the negative influence such hysterical, false reporting is having, although of course I'm not for a second laying all of the blame at the Mail's door, they're not the only ones that printed it.

McMac's picture

You've never read it have you?

McMac's picture

You've never read it have you?

McMac's picture

You've never read it have you?

McMac's picture

You've never read it have you?

McMac's picture

You've never read it have you?

McMac's picture

Six!

Is this comments systemngoing to be used as an excuse to remove comments? It's stunningly bad.

Barrie J's picture

Not being a huge fan of soccer, means I really don't know the place of birth
of any England footballers, however nationality has never bothered supporters or managers of England rugby or cricket teams, where for years both sports have been chock full of South Africans, Australians, Pacific Islanders, Zimbabweans etc., etc.
So much was this the case that only last year there was a suggestion passing around supporters that the England rugby team could be renamed the Barbarians.
Certainly, England are not alone, in that only ten years ago a holiday in Tenby was enough to qualify an All Black a run out for Wales.
A solution to this would be to select all players and sporting participants along the example of the Indian IPCL where sponsors bid for the best players.
The 'City of London' might be persuaded to pay for Team GB.
The poorest country gets the worse performing sportspeople, the wealthiest nation the best.
A solution, although not in the best sporting tradition that would seamlessly accord with modern times.
One only has to look at the London Olympics to see how relatively unimportant sport is to this bun fest - just as long as we win shed loads of medals.

Steve AM's picture

You don’t get this nonsense from newspapers in countries like The USA or Australia.

Spondulicks's picture

It's not difficult to see the difference between someone who has come to Britain just to get a shot at the Olympics, and someone who came as a refugee.

Once upon a time football clubs could buy or sell players from anywhere, but the English national team was composed exclusively of Englishmen. If the Olympic team's example is to be followed, the England football team will be able to bid for, say, Messi, Iniesta and Podolski, and we can all get deliriously patriotic when they win the World Cup for England.

Spondulicks's picture

Oh, and has the Mail really published 208 articles about plastic Brits? You can't count Katie Price or anyone in TOWIE.

Spondulicks's picture

"Once upon a time... " Don't know why I said that. Fortunately, the eligibility rules for the England team still stipulate Englishness. For now.

Euan McArthur's picture

If you hold that we should support individuals based on the tribe (i.e. the "British") that they belong to, that we have some kind of connection with them on this basis, then it is perfectly legitimate for the Daily Mail to draw up its own lines of demarcation; if you believe nationality is part of our essence such "xenophobic" excess will inevitably follow. Furthermore, you cannot point out the inherent incoherency of nationalism (because in reality national borders do not constrain or define human activity, because there are more pertinent dividing factors e.g. class, etc. etc.), or that nationalism stands or falls purely on acts of self-positing ("where you feel is home", what you say you are), and then say, but all the same, lets support "our" people. The modern Olympics did not initially divide athletes on the basis of nation, and should not today.

RobDonkey's picture

I was born here and I don't know the words to the national anthem...
Plus, who cares where our athletes come from if we actually win some medals?

Latest tweets