Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Anelka's quenelle

phildwyer said:
I understand that you've posted this anecdote with numerous caveats attached, and so my comment is not really aimed at you specifically.

But what you describe here is getting more common, I think. People are basically seeing anti-semitism wherever they want to see it. It's fear of prejudice as neurosis.

You're lucky to be sufficiently self-aware to see this process operating within your mind, and to reflect critically upon it. But others are not so self-aware. Such people are easy prey for unscrupulous agitators who would exploit their anxieties for their own ends.
Click to expand...


No, that really wasn't the point I'm making, I don't think she was antisemitic at all. What I was trying to say ( and maybe didn't say very well ) is that I think this stuff can sort of get a fertile ground where there's a culture of thinking that you know better than other people about politics simply because you are an activist (withoit knowing what those others are doing) the whole idea of the 'professional revolutionary' the idea that if someone doesn't want to take literature or go to a meeting or use the latest intersectional jargon they must either not care, be right wing or be brainwashed

That's not about this person specifically but it's a problem throughout the left and one of the reasons why I think the traditional left has become a bit useless

I agree about seeing antisemitism everywhere, that's why I've said that I think its a fairly marginal thing in the UK at the moment, I certainly don't think its anything most people in the UK agree with but I was giving my views as to why some antisemites might agree with it and where the attraction to it could come from
 
Anelka charged by FA
http://www.theguardian.com/football...anelka-charged-fa-quenelle-gesture?CMP=twt_gu
Nicolas Anelka has been charged by the Football Association for making a gesture that was alleged to be "abusive or indecent or insulting or improper" during the match against West Ham on 28 December last year.

An FA statement said: "It is alleged that, in the 40th minute of the fixture, Anelka made a gesture which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper, contrary to FA Rule E3[1].

"It is further alleged that this is an aggravated breach, as defined in FA Rule E3[2], in that it included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief."

Anelka has until 6pm on 23 January 2014 to respond to the charge
Click to expand...
 
I think the FA were always going to have to act. I seem to remember Suarez's defence was that the word wasn't seen as racist / offensive in his own country, having rejected that the FA were bound also to reject Anelka's defence.
 
Teaboy said:
I think the FA were always going to have to act. I seem to remember Suarez's defence was that the word wasn't seen as racist / offensive in his own country, having rejected that the FA were bound also to reject Anelka's defence.
Click to expand...
They haven't rejected it yet!
 
Last edited:
Teaboy said:
Well, they must have considered it before charging him. Of course Anelka can appeal the charge with a personal hearing (which he probably will) but I don't think he'll stand much of a chance.
Click to expand...
He can't appeal the charge! There's no such thing as appealing the charge. He has to go through their process now - lawyers, evidence, expert witnesses everything. Same as Suarez. This isn't the sort of minor thing where you used to be able to ask for a personal hearing and it was done in an hour then off to the bar. And he can't appeal the tribunals judgment either.
 
Last edited:
Actually - slight backtrack, we've not quite reached the Suarez point yet - the full 'trial' thing anyway - that will happen if Anelka denies the charge. Before that: "A three-man independent regulatory commission will now be appointed to deal with the case – either to decide on the sanction if Anelka admits the charge or to hold a disciplinary hearing if he denies it."
 
ddraig said:
"It is further alleged that this is an aggravated breach, as defined in FA Rule E3[2], in that it included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief."
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see how the FA argue this bit.

Might this explain why they've taken a while to decide on what to charge Anelka with? - maybe someone's been reading this thread...
 
butchersapron said:
Actually - slight backtrack, we've not quite reached the Suarez point yet - the full 'trial' thing anyway - that will happen if Anelka denies the charge. Before that: "A three-man independent regulatory commission will now be appointed to deal with the case – either to decide on the sanction if Anelka admits the charge or to hold a disciplinary hearing if he denies it."
Click to expand...
given he's already said 'i did it' it's hard to see how he can deny making the gesture
 
DotCommunist said:
David Irving
Click to expand...
irving would say it should be more like this

HitlerNaziSalute.jpg
 
cesare said:
The defence of "but in Uruquay, "porque, negro" is a friendly way of addressing a black person"

And

The possible defence of "but the quenelle is a gesture of anti-authoritarianism and its habitual use outside holocaust memorials is purely coincidental"

:D
Click to expand...

Suárez is generally a cheat and a twat but in South American culture negrito/rubio/moreno etc are used by everyone all the time to talk to each other. The way that covered in the UK was complete bullshit. Whether Suárez was using plausible deniability as a way of winding up Evra, and also whether you think you can transport South American culture into an Anglo-Saxon environment and pretend it's fine are different things completely. But yeah, calling people "negrito", "moreno" or a number of other words to describe someone's appearance is fine in those cultures. I have an acquaintance who insists on being called "la morena" or la "morenaza" even though I've asked for her real name. How a situation emerged where some nicknames are about skin colour while white people's tend to be about hair colour is a moot point however; one that might well be racist at its root. Sorry, as I'm sure this is old ground.

The quenelle is an anti-semitic gesture invented by an anti-semite occasionally used for other purposes. It's much more clear-cut. Its use can never be considered wholly innocent.
 
Last edited:
Favelado said:
Suárez is generally a cheat and a twat but in South American culture negrito/rubio/moreno etc are used by everyone all the time to talk to each other. The way that covered in the UK was complete bullshit. Whether Suárez was using plausible deniability as a way of winding up Evra, and also whether you think you can transport South American culture into an Anglo-Saxon environment and pretend it's fine are different things completely. But yeah, calling people "negrito", "moreno" or a number of other words to describe someone's appearance is fine in those cultures. I have an acquaintance who insists on being called "la morena" or la "morenaza" even though I've asked for her real name. How a situation emerged where some nicknames are about skin colour while white people's tend to be about hair colour is a moot point however; one that might well be racist at its root. Sorry, as I'm sure this is old ground.

The quenelle is an anti-semitic gesture invented by an anti-semite occasionally used for other purposes. It's much more clear-cut. It's use can never be considered wholly innocent.
Click to expand...
Whatever the pros and cons of Uruguayan custom and practice regarding addressing people, it's clear the FA decided it didn't import well. It wouldn't surprise me if they decide that the quenelle doesn't import well either.

Edit: the emphasis is on how it's (reasonably) received. How it's intended is mitigation.
 
Favelado said:
Suárez is generally a cheat and a twat but in South American culture negrito/rubio/moreno etc are used by everyone all the time to talk to each other. The way that covered in the UK was complete bullshit. Whether Suárez was using plausible deniability as a way of winding up Evra, and also whether you think you can transport South American culture into an Anglo-Saxon environment and pretend it's fine are different things completely. But yeah, calling people "negrito", "moreno" or a number of other words to describe someone's appearance is fine in those cultures. I have an acquaintance who insists on being called "la morena" or la "morenaza" even though I've asked for her real name. How a situation emerged where some nicknames are about skin colour while white people's tend to be about hair colour is a moot point however; one that might well be racist at its root. Sorry, as I'm sure this is old ground.

The quenelle is an anti-semitic gesture invented by an anti-semite occasionally used for other purposes. It's much more clear-cut. It's use can never be considered wholly innocent.
Click to expand...
Don't think you were here at the time - and don't know if you have inclination to return to the issue, but the long suarez thread on here was a very interesting read.
 
cesare said:
Whatever the pros and cons of Uruguayan custom and practice regarding addressing people, it's clear the FA decided it didn't import well. It wouldn't surprise me if they decide that the quenelle doesn't import well either.
Click to expand...

That's true, but it's worth pointing out what a load of shit people in Britain spoke about that case.
 
Favelado said:
I will and I'm sure I can learn something too. There's plenty of people on here who would have something valuable to say. Apologies for derail.
Click to expand...
Not sure it's a derail given the charges and initial defences. Could be some quite revealing comparisons to be made - depending on how Anelka responds to the charges anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom