Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pete

Racism footbal's dirty secret

Recommended Posts

When anti-Semitism, which is a form of racism, is condoned and even encouraged at all levels of the Labour party - all the way to the leader of the party, then there is little surprise that some see it as open season to be racist. Not even top-level investigations seem to make much difference, the Human Rights Commission have only invstigated two political parties, the BNP and the Labour party and until there's some severe punishment to make people sit up and take note, it will undoubtedly continue for a long time yet.

Sorry to the rest of you but I have to respond. I stopped posting on the Brexit debate because of RTB.

I would point out to you RTB that the **** party, the one you called, ignorantly, left wing, started by blaming everyone else for their problems except themselves.

In a letter to the party, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said the Tories have one month to respond to the request for details, ITV news first revealed.

The Conservatives have been under fire in recent months over alleged incidents of Islamophobia in the party, with Tory chiefs forced to suspend dozens of members for abuse.

And you cannot even get the facts correct, something Goebbels was good at. Why don't you go and live with Tommy Robinson and leave us alone on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Sadly, such apology for Communism exists still today, despite the knowledge that both those countries murdered far more of their own citizens than the Nazis inflicted on others.

And given that Nazis were National Socialists, in other words Nationalists of the Far Left, we can dismiss Badger's claim that those on the extreme right of politics are more prone to racism as without evidence.

Sorry RTB, you don't know what you are talking about in this case. Hitler for example, hated communism above all else and hated the fact that he said it wished to abolish private property. They adopted the name "National Socialist" in a deliberate attempt to attract German workers away from left-wing parties. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-communism (I've given a Wikki link as the evidence you required but there are myriad other more detailed economic/ political/ philosophical analyses of this.)

Re communism, I don't think that you understand basic Marxist theory. The whole point of communism is that the "state withers away and dies" and is replaced by communism. A "communist state" is an oxymoron (or Country as you call it). Lenin stated that the state is always and everywhere "an instrument of oppression."

"The State and Revolution (Lenin) describes the inherent nature of the State as a tool for class oppression, a creation born of a social class’s desire to control the other social classes of its society when politico-economic disputes cannot otherwise be amicably resolved; ... the State remains the social-control means of the ruling class."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_and_Revolution

Nationalism is also largely seen as a concomitant of capitalism. Whilst some nations predate capitalism, the Nation State is a phenomenon that is closely associated with capitalism as is nationalism. Nationalism was consciously used by the ruling classes as a means of soft control over the working classes when the rise of socialism brought about democracy. This is very easily observed in late nineteenth and twentieth century Germany (see for e.g Willhelm 2nd) and evidenced in the Primrose League in Britain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_League) and of course, imperialism in the 19th century. 

You might not like having the Daily Mail factoids challenged, but your point is totally without foundation or understanding. But to repeat my original point, of course many/ most right wing thinkers are disgusted by racism, but philosophically it is something that can emerge from a a creed that emphasises difference and superiority which the more right wing nationalists tend to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

When anti-Semitism, which is a form of racism, is condoned and even encouraged at all levels of the Labour party - all the way to the leader of the party, then there is little surprise that some see it as open season to be racist. Not even top-level investigations seem to make much difference, the Human Rights Commission have only invstigated two political parties, the BNP and the Labour party and until there's some severe punishment to make people sit up and take note, it will undoubtedly continue for a long time yet.

The Labour party's position on antisemitism is deplorable and indefensible. It is an egregious illness that must be obliterated from a supposedly mainstream political party. I don't think anybody could have voted Labour at the last election without holding their noses and having strong moral pangs of conscience. 

I can't believe that it is not a lot easier to obliterate racism from a political party than it is to remove it from football crowds, so cannot argue with the thrust of your point on this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Herman said:

I'd prefer it to be the first but as he keeps repeating it, I fear it is the second.

Ah, that explains a lot, thanks Herman 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Your wasting your time expecting anything sensible from RTB.

" Nazis were National Socialists, in other words Nationalists of the Far Left". - RTB

" The National Socialist German Workers' Party commonly referred to in English as the **** Party was a far-right political party" - people who are not stupid.

 

 

No, if you were to read the twenty-five point plan that the National Socialist party wrote at the formation of the party you will be aware that it was a fusion of Nationalist and Socialist ideologies. It differentiates from Soviet and Chinese socialism as they were International in make-up, with the intention of using a socialist manifesto to turn the world into a set of communist states. The German National Socialist movement used a socialist manifesto to create only a German socialist state that would rule over other states. They had no interest to convert other states to German National Socialism.

But the socialist principles were all there in the German model: all citizens are equal, labour is framed by the community, abolition of unearned income, confiscation of excess profits, nationalisation of corporations, welfare state, communilisation of large stores, abolition of ground rent, land reform, prohibition of land speculation, expropriation of land without compensation, death penalty for usurers and profiteers, state provision of education, abolition of Roman law because of its materialistic nature, formation of people's army to replace professional army, ban on press not conducive to public good - all of which are concepts of socialist doctrine.

The German National Socialist party was most definitely founded on socialist principles. The evidence is there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More drivel from RTB.

This argument has been used to attack socialism through association with **** policies. It has also led to confusion, as Nazism is normally associated with fascism and far-right-wing views. 

The issue of whether the Nazis were socialists isn’t a straightforward one, due to how the **** party developed and grew its base of support. But the consensus among historians is that the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, were not socialists in any meaningful sense.

Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology. Historian Richard Evans wrote of the Nazis’ incorporation of socialist into their name in 1920, “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism”. Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, “Hitler was never a socialist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Badger said:

Sorry RTB, you don't know what you are talking about in this case. Hitler for example, hated communism above all else and hated the fact that he said it wished to abolish private property. They adopted the name "National Socialist" in a deliberate attempt to attract German workers away from left-wing parties. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Anti-communism (I've given a Wikki link as the evidence you required but there are myriad other more detailed economic/ political/ philosophical analyses of this.)

Re communism, I don't think that you understand basic Marxist theory. The whole point of communism is that the "state withers away and dies" and is replaced by communism. A "communist state" is an oxymoron (or Country as you call it). Lenin stated that the state is always and everywhere "an instrument of oppression."

"The State and Revolution (Lenin) describes the inherent nature of the State as a tool for class oppression, a creation born of a social class’s desire to control the other social classes of its society when politico-economic disputes cannot otherwise be amicably resolved; ... the State remains the social-control means of the ruling class."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_and_Revolution

Nationalism is also largely seen as a concomitant of capitalism. Whilst some nations predate capitalism, the Nation State is a phenomenon that is closely associated with capitalism as is nationalism. Nationalism was consciously used by the ruling classes as a means of soft control over the working classes when the rise of socialism brought about democracy. This is very easily observed in late nineteenth and twentieth century Germany (see for e.g Willhelm 2nd) and evidenced in the Primrose League in Britain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_League) and of course, imperialism in the 19th century. 

You might not like having the Daily Mail factoids challenged, but your point is totally without foundation or understanding. But to repeat my original point, of course many/ most right wing thinkers are disgusted by racism, but philosophically it is something that can emerge from a a creed that emphasises difference and superiority which the more right wing nationalists tend to do.

You fail to distinguish between International Socialism which as the driving doctrine in countries such as the Soviet Union and China, and National Socialism which was the driving doctrine in **** Germany. As it's name implies the German version was a fusion of both Nationalism and Socialism with the intention of attracting the interest of the masses through a folkish rhetoric. As you will recall, at this time in Germany there were a multitude of small left-wing, right-wing and communist parties all competing for power and control of the people. The Nazis were not merely anti-communist but anti every other party, and if you forget this then it is understandable that you fall into the trap of thinking that because they fought the communists they must not have been socialists. Indeed, if you look at the Soviet Union you will see the factionalisation of politics even within a one-system state that causes one faction to fight against another.

Neither should you put much store by the idea that socialism and communism was against the state, (therefore German being pro-state couldn't be socialist). during the Second World War, the Soviet appeal to its people was driven by the call to protect Mother Russia and the State against the Fascists. It was an appeal to patriotism that allowed the Soviets to slaughter its soldiers in massive battles of attrition against the Germans.

I would also dispute your claim that racism is more likely to found in right-wing thinking. There is plenty of evidence of racism in international football from those countries that were part of the old soviet union, and racism is a serious issue in China. Anti-Semitism is also a form of racism which unfortunately has become a major part of left-wing parties in the West.

So trying to intersectionalise racism by claiming it's more likely in some political thinking and not others is really doing the subject a dis-service as it only leads people down narrow alleyways and way from the areas where we should really be looking for the problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

More drivel from RTB.

This argument has been used to attack socialism through association with **** policies. It has also led to confusion, as Nazism is normally associated with fascism and far-right-wing views. 

The issue of whether the Nazis were socialists isn’t a straightforward one, due to how the **** party developed and grew its base of support. But the consensus among historians is that the Nazis, and Hitler in particular, were not socialists in any meaningful sense.

Historians have regularly disavowed claims that Hitler adhered to socialist ideology. Historian Richard Evans wrote of the Nazis’ incorporation of socialist into their name in 1920, “Despite the change of name, however, it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth from, socialism….Nazism was in some ways an extreme counter-ideology to socialism”. Or as simply put by historian and Hitler expert Ian Kershaw, “Hitler was never a socialist.

 

Unfortunately the facts prove something different. You need to go back as far as 1919 and examine the early documents of the German Workers Party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, for what it’s worth, I think Son was fouled. I think he was aggrieved and in the resulting scuffle as he and Rudiger fell to the ground, he pointedly thought he’d stretch out his legs and certainly wanted to make contact. 

Rudiger made a meal of it with extremely poor acting - throwing himself around. Here I have to agree with José, Son deserved a yellow. Enter VAR......

My experience at THFC matches in the stands, most of the hard core fans wear masks/balaclavas/scarves over their mouths (due to the club not wanting them to chant ‘Yids’ ) - stands to reason they weren’t happy with Rudiger after the decision so as they say “We are Tottenham Hotspur, we’ll sing what we want” I doubt they’ll be able to pin the Monkey chants on anyone at WHL. 

I don’t condone this behaviour - just think if the diving, rolling around, acting etc was policed as harshly by VAR as the stupid decisions they have made so far at VAR HQ, then fans would feel less angry. 

Why wasnt Emi’s blatant stonewall corner pinged by VAR after his shot on goal? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/12/2019 at 20:58, Rock The Boat said:

No, if you were to read the twenty-five point plan that the National Socialist party wrote at the formation of the party you will be aware that it was a fusion of Nationalist and Socialist ideologies.

You omit to point out that the programme you reference was published in 1920 (perhaps you were unaware). The Party was originally set up as the German Workers Party before Hitler joined and took it away from its original roots and purged it of its socialist elements. Hitler joined the party that originally had socialist leanings and turned into a radical nationalist party to his own tastes and in doing so rejected its socialist policies and assassinated those in the party that wanted to retain them.

The most obvious example of this was the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, when Hitler used the SS and the Gestapo to purge his own party of its remaining left-leaning elements. In particular, Hitler used the K of t LN as a vehicle for getting rid of Rohm and Strasser because they wanted socialist reform in Germany. 

It is impossible to successfully fuse nationalism and socialism as they are in essence opposite ideologies. Nationalism places the nation state at the centre of its sympathies: socialism emphasises class consciousness above nation. Nationalism is largely a creation of capitalism; socialism wishes to replace capitalism with a society without nation ("communes.")

I don't know if you are unaware of this, unable to understand it or whether you have been indoctrinated by some of the right-wing websites that you visit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Badger said:

You omit to point out that the programme you reference was published in 1920 (perhaps you were unaware). The Party was originally set up as the German Workers Party before Hitler joined and took it away from its original roots and purged it of its socialist elements. Hitler joined the party that originally had socialist leanings and turned into a radical nationalist party to his own tastes and in doing so rejected its socialist policies and assassinated those in the party that wanted to retain them.

The most obvious example of this was the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, when Hitler used the SS and the Gestapo to purge his own party of its remaining left-leaning elements. In particular, Hitler used the K of t LN as a vehicle for getting rid of Rohm and Strasser because they wanted socialist reform in Germany. 

It is impossible to successfully fuse nationalism and socialism as they are in essence opposite ideologies. Nationalism places the nation state at the centre of its sympathies: socialism emphasises class consciousness above nation. Nationalism is largely a creation of capitalism; socialism wishes to replace capitalism with a society without nation ("communes.")

I don't know if you are unaware of this, unable to understand it or whether you have been indoctrinated by some of the right-wing websites that you visit. 

I think unaware,  unable to understand  and indoctrinated  sums it up nicely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/12/2019 at 21:27, Rock The Boat said:

Neither should you put much store by the idea that socialism and communism was against the state, (therefore German being pro-state couldn't be socialist). during the Second World War, the Soviet appeal to its people was driven by the call to protect Mother Russia and the State against the Fascists.

You are making my point for me! Obviously neither the USSR (nor China) were communist - how could they be:

1. They had not even gone through a capitalist phase - you don't jump from feudalism to  communism - it is impossible as you skip a whole stage of development. It's like a frog going from spawn to a frog without ever being a tadpole - developmentally impossible!

2. The USSR and Republic of China were/ are nation states. Being a state is fundamentally contradictory to the very notion of communism (hint: the clue is in the name!!).

The fact that the USSR appealed to "Mother Russia" as you correctly identify, is further evidence of its nationalism. Both are examples of state capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

I think unaware,  unable to understand  and indoctrinated  sums it up nicely. 

I think the latter is most likely. Nationalism has, in essence, replaced religion as the opiate of the people. As a Christian myself, I would argue that it is a deliberate and conscious policy to divide the working classes of internationalist elements that unite them.

Emphasising difference and division as well as placing individuality over community are ideological tools of capitalism to help it maintain control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to return to the original subject......

Racism at football matches is very easy to eliminate. 

The main issue for clubs and the FA is in identifying the culprits.

Relying exclusively on clubs to identify the culprits is the problem. It can’t always be done.

My view on this is that fans need to be involved. If you see or hear something that is racist record it on your smartphone. 

Crowds can more or less police themselves. 

If you don’t act then you yourself are condoning this behaviour.

A club that is presented with incontrovertible evidence of any fans racist behaviour can take action. 

Almost every fan has the ability to help eliminate this problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see in the last few days and weeks there are many people in England who are accusing the English authorities of doing nothing to combat the problem, but I think they're trying a lot harder than some.

There have been a lot of high profile incidents in Italian football this season and I think the main reason is due the fact that the clubs and the authorities have their heads buried in the sand completely over the issue.

Is there much of a difference between racism in society in Italy than England? For me, no. I'd say that if I had to choose, I'd say it's slightly more prevalent in Italy but the difference is marginal. I think maybe you see and more racism in Italy because there's less fear- in England, the racists know that nowadays they're risking an awful lot by being overtly racist, such as being arrested or even losing your job. In Italy there's less fear, and this is mirrored in football stadiums.

A good example would the incident at the Etihad a few weeks ago. Within about 18 hours of the game, the culprit had been identified, banned for life from the stadium, arrested and sacked from his job. In Italy the two biggest incidents this season have been the racist chanting against Romelu Lukaku at Cagliari and Mario Balotelli at Verona, and in both cases the clubs denied that any racist chanting took place and the FA, after an investigation, couldn't find any evidence. This is despite the fact that videos of both incidents are in YouTube, filmed from the stands where the chanting was coming from, and it's clearly audible that a decent-sized group of people are making monkey chants. In trying to pretend that racism isn't happening, the clubs and FA are just providing the platform for other racists to be racist and get away with it. 

So in comparison, the English authorities are actually doing quite a bit in comparison to other nations. But I have to agree with other posters earlier in the thread before it got hijacked that society and politics are empowering the racists to be more vocal. The UK has a prime minister who has made several anti-Islam comments in the past, the brexit vote has inadvertently made some ignorant people think that non-white British people aren't welcome, and in Italy there's Salvini, who fortunately isn't part of the government any more, but makes Johnson and Trump's comments appear tame. The rise of the right-wing and nationalism has made a lot of stupid, racist people think that it's acceptable to be xenophobic.

Unfortunately, racism is everywhere and chances are it will still be for the remainder of our lifetimes. But the UK are doing more about it than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a world of difference between being anti-semitic and being anti-Israeli government policy on Palestine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris Johnson's anti-semitism has normalised the foulest sentiments from previously timid racists. These idiots see Johnson unveiling a statue of a lady who thought that Hitler had the right idea about the jews and it emboldens them. These scummy elements read Johnson's novel which contains the foulest attacks on a jewish character and feel emboldened to be more open about their racism.  Only one party leader in this country has ever attacked religious dress remember, and it was Johnson. That's what Gary Neville meant, he was saying when so much of the election campaign concentrated on Boris Johnson's foul racism it meant that previously suppressed sentiments bubbled to the surface. We know it happened because racist attacks rose sharply after Johnson wrote that poisonous piece, up 375% in a week. Just think about that for a minute. Because of our PM innocent people were attacked in the street by racists. Because of Boris Johnson. 

 

Neville was spot on. Racism is on the rise and it's foolish to pretend it's a problem confined to or inspired by football.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...