brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Either way, he chose to use that gesture, in a highly public way, to express it.
Anelka's quenelle
- Thread starter where to
- Start date
Either way, he chose to use that gesture, in a highly public way, to express it.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
He did indeed. I wonder how the FA are getting on with their crash course in modern French culture.
Jack Wilshire got a two-match ban for flipping the finger at opposition fans a few weeks ago (I think).
Well given that his mate is a leading anti-semite and the gesture is a known anti-semitic gesture generally if not always used in an anti-semitic way then I think we can guess. Though frankly I think your question is pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things, they both amount to the same thing.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
I think it's a question the FA will be considering. Difference between a few days' ban and a life ban.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Right, few things to deal with. The suggestion that Dieudonne first used the gesture before he had moved to the far-right and openly embraced anti-semitism and it only picked up anti-semitic connotations after the had made that move. Not true. He first used in 2009 when he was heading the anti-semitic party alongside Alain Soral, other NFers and assorted anti-semites. Remember this poster from earlier, the one with Soral on the right, the anti-semite on the left, the clown in the middle and the grasping jew skulking in the background? That's from that 2009 campaign.
The reality is that Dieudonné has been on the far right and engaging in anti-semitism since the early 2000s and has been publicly well known for being and doing so in France since then.
Secondly, the idea that this was just part of a sketch about dolphins and so had no anti-semitic content in itself when first used: it's reported that it was part of a sketch about things secretly running the world and that in the clowns worldview it's Jews who secretly run the world how much more obvious do you think the metaphor has to be?
And finally, it was used as fuck you to west ham fans. The most ludicrous of all the explanations - Anelka couldn't care less about the west ham fans, and he would know they have no idea what the gesture meant. It was, as he said, a gesture of solidarity with his anti-semitic mate at the exact same time that his mate was under fierce public attack from high profile politicians and others for his anti-semitism. On top of which, the gesture has no 'fuck you' content as flicking the Vs or something similar would (apart from to Jews of course) so why on earth would he choose to use to to say fuck you to west ham fans.
The reality is that Dieudonné has been on the far right and engaging in anti-semitism since the early 2000s and has been publicly well known for being and doing so in France since then.
Secondly, the idea that this was just part of a sketch about dolphins and so had no anti-semitic content in itself when first used: it's reported that it was part of a sketch about things secretly running the world and that in the clowns worldview it's Jews who secretly run the world how much more obvious do you think the metaphor has to be?
And finally, it was used as fuck you to west ham fans. The most ludicrous of all the explanations - Anelka couldn't care less about the west ham fans, and he would know they have no idea what the gesture meant. It was, as he said, a gesture of solidarity with his anti-semitic mate at the exact same time that his mate was under fierce public attack from high profile politicians and others for his anti-semitism. On top of which, the gesture has no 'fuck you' content as flicking the Vs or something similar would (apart from to Jews of course) so why on earth would he choose to use to to say fuck you to west ham fans.
Last edited:
Again, without wanting or attempting to defend Anelka, it is entirely possible that he had no idea this would be a big deal.
There was a storm in Scotland when Gascoigne did this...
Many Celtic fans got themselves into a such a tizzy about it that they spit when they speak his name even now.
1. There is no doubt it this is a Sectarian gesture, designed to wind up/offend Celtic fans
2. There is equally no doubt (in my mind, and I've heard him speak on iot a few times) that Gascoigne is a village idiot type, who had no real grasp of just what a shit-storm it would cause; who was set up to do this by home-grown rangers players who should, and did, know better (abut didn't think he would actually be stupid enough to do it).
So gascoigne doing this would have a different meaning - because of his intent and forethought (or lack of it) - to if a homegrown rangers player had done it.
None of the above excuses Anelka's choice.
There was a storm in Scotland when Gascoigne did this...
Many Celtic fans got themselves into a such a tizzy about it that they spit when they speak his name even now.
1. There is no doubt it this is a Sectarian gesture, designed to wind up/offend Celtic fans
2. There is equally no doubt (in my mind, and I've heard him speak on iot a few times) that Gascoigne is a village idiot type, who had no real grasp of just what a shit-storm it would cause; who was set up to do this by home-grown rangers players who should, and did, know better (abut didn't think he would actually be stupid enough to do it).
So gascoigne doing this would have a different meaning - because of his intent and forethought (or lack of it) - to if a homegrown rangers player had done it.
None of the above excuses Anelka's choice.
Last edited:
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
Brogdale has nailed it.
We don't have to have mind reading abilities to look act someones actions and understand them, to assign motivation to them. To argue otherwise is ridiculous, an extreme individualism that is effectively a statement that there is no society, no possible attempt of understanding between human beings.
I don't need to be black, French or muslim to see that a bloke who's mates with an anti-semite, making an gesture which has been repeatedly shown in this thread to be anti-Semitic is, at best, a prick who uses racist actions.
MellySingsDoom
Decimated by the shrapnel of his rhetoric
At this point in the matter, I think we can safely say (unless Anelka clearly answers the anti-Semitism charge) it's both.
DexterTCN
Troy and Abed in the morning
Anelka has explicitly said it was neither racist nor anti-semitic.
"I ask people not to be duped by the media. And of course I am neither anti-Semite nor racist."
Nasri has explicitly stated the same.
"The pose in the picture i posted over 2 months ago symbolises being against the system. Its has absolutely nothing to do with being anti semitic or against jewish people"
Well in order to judge how obvious a metaphor may be we would first need to know what the metaphor is, would we not? My only knowledge of the dolphins thing is what was posted by FNG earlier. It contained no such analysis.
"It's reported"... by who? Now you have apparently done your homework and found the connection. Thank you and thank you for sharing that knowledge. A link or two might be handy for the rest of us to fill in the blanks.
Maybe he should have read this thread first?
MellySingsDoom
Decimated by the shrapnel of his rhetoric
Seeing as what's come to light over all this, I personally find Anelka's answer a tad disingenuous, in that he continues to count a known anti-Semite amongst his friends - if he is not an anti-Semite himself, wouldn't it be a good idea for him to break links with Dioudonne at this point?. No one's being "duped" by the media, either - there's no anti-Anelka agenda at play, it's simply a case of him being (correctly, in my view) pulled up for making that gesture. As for the Nasri quote, I think we can safely say that the "anti-establishment" use of the quenelle has been completely detourned into an anti-Semitic trope, so that's not a good answer from him either.
These chaps had some explaining to do too. Fortunately the rangers supporters association was on hand to explain they were doing a 'traditional' 'Red-Hand salute'...
as were these chaps too...
this was maintained til they were betrayed by outraged conservative unionists who insisted that there was no such thing.
e2a I don't think the rangers fans above are Nazi's. I think they were idiots who thought that this was an ideal way to offend their hosts - as is, unfortunately, their wont. But there is equally no doubt that they were delivering Nazi salutes.
The serving soldiers? I suspect they may well be Fash. I have seen no other explanation coming forth.
as were these chaps too...
this was maintained til they were betrayed by outraged conservative unionists who insisted that there was no such thing.
e2a I don't think the rangers fans above are Nazi's. I think they were idiots who thought that this was an ideal way to offend their hosts - as is, unfortunately, their wont. But there is equally no doubt that they were delivering Nazi salutes.
The serving soldiers? I suspect they may well be Fash. I have seen no other explanation coming forth.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I just told you that the metaphor was mammals/dolphins/jews secretly running the world. It was in the post that you replied to.
Cars move to the far right when they overtake a traffic jam.
Political views do not "move to the far right."
xslavearcx
time for a nu-metal revival?
Yeah, definately in the case of gasgoine it was just a daft thing he did, and probably was at the behest of players in the dressing room to take the piss out of him a bit, or just as a dare or whatever. I think though with Anelka, coming from the french speaking cultural background, with his friendship with the originator with that, dont really think slack can be cut there which is what you say anyways...
xslavearcx
time for a nu-metal revival?
Makes you wonder that maybe leftist opposition to the state of isreal ought to adopt a different term other than 'anti-zionism' seeing as it is so loaded now?
The substance of your post was speculation about why various people might oppose capitalism, and what they might want to put in its place.
I just don't think people's motives are so clearly identifiable, except in practice. And any kind of revolutionary practice will utterly transform people's motives, aims, and possibilities, so there's little point in speculating about them beforehand.
That's the lesson of history.
Furthermore, although you call yourself an anti-capitalist, you readily admit that you'd choose capitalism over a wide variety of alternatives. That tells me that you do not understand what capitalism is or what it does.
And finally, most probably related to the above, you have absolutely NO STRATEGY WHATSOEVER for actually bringing capitalism to an end. Which you must admit is a rather serious deficiency in an anti-capitalist.
And so while I'm most awfully sorry to outrage your decency:
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
Oh I've heard this before, not applied to fascists though. "As soon as the revolution comes they will be liberated from their deeply held discriminatory and bigoted politics through fighting the state!" As proven in 1979 in Iran, Egypt in 2011... Etc
Also does anyone on the left seriously argue that actually existing capitalism is worse than fascism? FFS
Also does anyone on the left seriously argue that actually existing capitalism is worse than fascism? FFS
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Also its well patronising to say black and Muslim people cant be far right and are just like some innocent little creatures. This is what really annoyed me in Julie Burchill's article when she talked about a fascist street movement in Israel, the JDL just being some 'exuberant Jews' or whatever. As if they couldn't really hold the political opinions they did and couldn't really be far right and worthy of being taken seriously because they're from a group she's chosen to see as a noble savage. It's almost like reverse racism in a way, its saying that because they're from a certain group they must not be fash and if not theyre innocent little creatures who don't and can't mean it because of their ethnicity.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Well, people are told that His mercy and forgiveness are infinite, but to be scrupulously fair, that might just be a cunning plan by the priestly class to win over extra converts with false publicity.
I personally prefer the concept of "No G-ds, No Masters", but I don't have an especial aversion to those who practice organised religions. Most people have a desire to believe in something. For some it's a deity, for others it's politics, for others still it's themselves.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He/she/the flying spaghetti monster exists for those that believe. For most people who have religious faith, that's enough to sustain them.
Although, for those whose belief is invested in a proselytising faith, the belief of believers isn't enough - they feel obliged to win converts too, which is probably at the root of an awful lot of antipathy toward organised religion Why would any rationalist give credence to a belief system whose lust for new souls has killed so many people in the last 1800 or so years, purely in the name of a G-d?
Anyone on the "Left?"
Ryan Giggs played on the left, we could ask him I suppose.
Personally I'd never argue that, but then I'm a midfielder.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
TBF, the ed would have been better coming over all Nietzschean, and saying "G-d is dead", instead, because that is the case for some people - that G-d is dead to them.