Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Anelka's quenelle

Maybe, Liam, maybe. Personally though, I'd probably banhammer them if they kept coming out w/the same nonsense repeatedly. Just me own view, like.

I dunno. It's never black & white is it?

I have an old mate on my fb who is basically a decent fella but does come out with some outrageous shit - mostly to provoke debate - but I enjoy the comments other people make to shoot down his positions. So does he.

Although he does have some nasty tory mates who post their reactionary shite too. But it's all done, mostly, in the spirit of canteen/gym banter (he is a Plasterer and a Martial Artist). But if I - and the couple of Anarchist Martial Artists who also post - delete him, then we abandon the field to the reactionaries.
 
Was dropping him for adebayor anyway.

Lukaku, speaking in a video interview which has since been removed from Everton's website, publicly backed the West Brom forward, saying: "He's been my idol since I was a kid. He still is.

"I think he shouldn't be banned for that. He was supporting a stand-up comedian in France. We don't have to make such a big deal about it. He's an adult. I hope he doesn't get suspended because he's a player people want to see play on the pitch."
 
I dunno. It's never black & white is it?

I have an old mate on my fb who is basically a decent fella but does come out with some outrageous shit - mostly to provoke debate - but I enjoy the comments other people make to shoot down his positions. So does he.

Although he does have some nasty tory mates who post their reactionary shite too. But it's all done, mostly, in the spirit of canteen/gym banter (he is a Plasterer and a Martial Artist). But if I - and the couple of Anarchist Martial Artists who also post - delete him, then we abandon the field to the reactionaries.

Interesting points you raise there, Liam. My own "rules" for FB is to allow discussion/debate etc to be as open as possible, and if I have a fundamental disagreement with someone, then the best way is to argue the case on yer own side. A couple of days ago, I got into a debate with a real-life friend on FB re politics and anti-fascism - their view was that all politics is essentially useless and not worth bothering with, and that political activism changes absolutely nothing. I didn't agree, but was calm, polite and stuck to the facts. We agreed to disagree in the end, and finished on good terms.

On the other hand, I found out that a "name" music writer is on FB these days, and this is someone I've known on and off on an offline level since 1993. For reasons best known to themselves, they've become a rather major suppoter of black metal - a genre of music I overall absolutely despise, due to the political "thinking" of many of the groups involved in said genre (the musical "merits" of black metal is something I'm supremely uninterested in these days - I did have an interest in some of the groups involved 6 years ago or so, but alarm bells started going off in a big way once I read "Lords Of Chaos"*, and once I read up more on this, I dumped the whole thing from my life....the only band that I have even the smallest time for in that scene is the Japanese band Gallhammer, who are far more crust-punk than anything, and are a very rare case of a black metal groups without rancid politics). Anyway, I was momentarily tempted to hook up with them on FB, but decided against it - they've stuck to their guns on black metal, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the amount of political garbage involved in that scene, and I concluded that I'd only get into an immediate argument with them, which would be totally futile and energy-wasting. It's sad really, in a way, because before that they were perfectly decent and reasonable, but I have a hard line on fascist music, and I'm afraid to say anyone who defends that scene is beyond help to me. Maybe that's unfair, maybe I should listen to what they have to say...but to be honest, I think you have to take a stand somewhere along the line, and say "no, this is unacceptable", and that's my own personal line.

(*Later on, I found out that one of the co-authors of "Lords Of Chaos" - Michael Moynihan - is a major league fascist himself, and the other co-author - Didrik Soderlind - has made positive noises towards the anti-immigration Swedish Democrats. No wonder the book contained not one instance of any repulsive views being challenged).

2 years ago, I also found to my horror that 5 (five) FB friends also had a certain Mr Southgate as their friend there. At the time, I thought, "Jesus Christ!", and binned them all immediately. Would I do the same today? Depends - if I knew them offline, I'd approach them directly and say "what the fuck is this all about?", and try to persuade them to cut ties with someone like that before ending a relationship with them. If I didn't know them personally, then the banhammer would come out again, I'm afraid. I'm also dealing with 2 FB friends who have "liked" the official David Icke page there....again, the banhammer might be coming out there too, as our discussions seem to be getting not very far at all).

I think, ultimately, you have to take contentious issues on a case by case basis. Argue and debate and challenge where you can, but reserve the right to cut ties where necessary. And sometimes, you have to be brutal and swift in cutting ties as well.

Hope that makes some sort of sense! Be interested to know what you make on my take on things.

P.S. Just remembered this - I also fell out both on FB and in real life w/the former singer of the Stretchheads, after I found out about his real-life friendship with Douglas Pearce (Death In June).
 
Last edited:
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.

I've spoken to Latin Americans in Spain who seem to think that calling a black lad negrito isn't the same as calling someone moreno. Then again Peruvian leftists who are absolutely not racist happily call Fujimori Chinochet. I feel like I'd need to know more about race and language in the Southern Cone to really say much about it..
 
I've spoken to Latin Americans in Spain who seem to think that calling a black lad negrito isn't the same as calling someone moreno. Then again Peruvian leftists who are absolutely not racist happily call Fujimori Chinochet. I feel like I'd need to know more about race and language in the Southern Cone to really say much about it..

Well they refer to different skin tones of course. There's a lot of context, history and yes, racism involved in all this. It's a subject full of subtleties. An interesting one too that I don't know all the answers too despite experiences and relationships.
 
I just had a thought. Surely the quenelle is only the starting point of the british 'up yours'.

Do the quenelle and then raise your lower hand in a fist.
 
I just had a thought. Surely the quenelle is only the starting point of the british 'up yours'.

Do the quenelle and then raise your lower hand in a fist.

Glad we've cleared that up then. Well done, that's nice work. How do we inform the FA before they make a mistake?
 
He was on the Wright stuff recently, I think he said some vaguely progressive stuff

definitely channeling the spirit of shankly in this interview
"Football is a socialist sport," he explains. "Financially, some may receive more rewards than others but, from a footballing perspective, for 90 minutes, regardless of whether you are Lionel Messi or the substitute right-back for Argentina, you are all working to the same end.
"The teams which embrace the socialist ideology rather than having superstars, are the teams that are successful."
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/wor...in-until-they-embrace-team-ethic-6486123.html
 
Posh boy son. You've got

Well I came to England looking for fame
So come on Kenny man, give us a game
'cause I'm sat on the bench paying my dues with the blues
I'm very big down under, but my wife disagrees

They've won the league, bigger stars than Dallas
They got more silver than Buckingham Palace
No-one knows quite what to expect
When the red machine's in full effect
 
He was on the Wright stuff recently, I think he said some vaguely progressive stuff
He actually had a reasonable line on both the Terry case and black managers which contracted with both the knee jerking and positive discrimination lobbies.
 
Barnes has long promoting we don't need a body - those with a body do. He's a rich boy and i don't think his views chime with black footballers today. Not because they're black but because unions sell themselves as cheap trips and insurance. I bet the Union is one of the last 100% places.
 
That's a bit weird. It's normally one or the other :D

Theres only one team in Glasgow!!!!

The whole song is

"hello hello how do you do,
we hate the boys in royal blue,
we hate the boys in emrald queen,
so fuck your pope and fuck your queen"

- it was in its time defining the partick thistle supporter position in as non-sectarian manner in contradistinction to the (percieved) orange/protestant rangers and irish-catholic celtic thing. At the time, i think it held its function well. In the context of the crack down on 'sectarian' or 'political' songs sung by rangers and celtic fans, there has been a lot of contradictory prounoncements regarding whether it is suitable to be used in within football, and the charge of it being sectarian has been made (which i think tbh is a lot of bollocks but the sectarian interpretation takes each of those verses in isolation whereas id say its the whole song that makes that point). About 5 years back the SFA gave clarification about that song saying that they did not consider it to be something that would be on the list of problematic songs, but the club has been cracking down on it more often, and it is now generally discouraged by fans in the kinda self policing manner. This is also in the context of recent anti sectarian legistlation that some celtic fan groups have been protesting against of late.

ETA - should also add that scottish football is fucking shite.
 
Last edited:
Theres only one team in Glasgow!!!!

The whole song is

"hello hello how do you do,
we hate the boys in royal blue,
we hate the boys in emrald queen,
so fuck your pope and fuck your queen"

- it was in its time defining the partick thistle supporter position in as non-sectarian manner in contradistinction to the (percieved) orange/protestant rangers and irish-catholic celtic thing. At the time, i think it held its function well. In the context of the crack down on 'sectarian' or 'political' songs sung by rangers and celtic fans, there has been a lot of contradictory prounoncements regarding whether it is suitable to be used in within football, and the charge of it being sectarian has been made (which i think tbh is a lot of bollocks but the sectarian interpretation takes each of those verses in isolation whereas id say its the whole song that makes that point). About 5 years back the SFA gave clarification about that song saying that they did not consider it to be something that would be on the list of problematic songs, but the club has been cracking down on it more often, and it is now generally discouraged by fans in the kinda self policing manner. This is also in the context of recent anti sectarian legistlation that some celtic fan groups have been protesting against of late.

ETA - should also add that scottish football is fucking shite.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that song! :confused: :D
 
Interesting points you raise there, Liam. My own "rules" for FB is to allow discussion/debate etc to be as open as possible, and if I have a fundamental disagreement with someone, then the best way is to argue the case on yer own side. A couple of days ago, I got into a debate with a real-life friend on FB re politics and anti-fascism - their view was that all politics is essentially useless and not worth bothering with, and that political activism changes absolutely nothing. I didn't agree, but was calm, polite and stuck to the facts. We agreed to disagree in the end, and finished on good terms.

On the other hand, I found out that a "name" music writer is on FB these days, and this is someone I've known on and off on an offline level since 1993. For reasons best known to themselves, they've become a rather major suppoter of black metal - a genre of music I overall absolutely despise, due to the political "thinking" of many of the groups involved in said genre (the musical "merits" of black metal is something I'm supremely uninterested in these days - I did have an interest in some of the groups involved 6 years ago or so, but alarm bells started going off in a big way once I read "Lords Of Chaos"*, and once I read up more on this, I dumped the whole thing from my life....the only band that I have even the smallest time for in that scene is the Japanese band Gallhammer, who are far more crust-punk than anything, and are a very rare case of a black metal groups without rancid politics). Anyway, I was momentarily tempted to hook up with them on FB, but decided against it - they've stuck to their guns on black metal, in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the amount of political garbage involved in that scene, and I concluded that I'd only get into an immediate argument with them, which would be totally futile and energy-wasting. It's sad really, in a way, because before that they were perfectly decent and reasonable, but I have a hard line on fascist music, and I'm afraid to say anyone who defends that scene is beyond help to me. Maybe that's unfair, maybe I should listen to what they have to say...but to be honest, I think you have to take a stand somewhere along the line, and say "no, this is unacceptable", and that's my own personal line.

(*Later on, I found out that one of the co-authors of "Lords Of Chaos" - Michael Moynihan - is a major league fascist himself, and the other co-author - Didrik Soderlind - has made positive noises towards the anti-immigration Swedish Democrats. No wonder the book contained not one instance of any repulsive views being challenged).

2 years ago, I also found to my horror that 5 (five) FB friends also had a certain Mr Southgate as their friend there. At the time, I thought, "Jesus Christ!", and binned them all immediately. Would I do the same today? Depends - if I knew them offline, I'd approach them directly and say "what the fuck is this all about?", and try to persuade them to cut ties with someone like that before ending a relationship with them. If I didn't know them personally, then the banhammer would come out again, I'm afraid. I'm also dealing with 2 FB friends who have "liked" the official David Icke page there....again, the banhammer might be coming out there too, as our discussions seem to be getting not very far at all).

I think, ultimately, you have to take contentious issues on a case by case basis. Argue and debate and challenge where you can, but reserve the right to cut ties where necessary. And sometimes, you have to be brutal and swift in cutting ties as well.

Hope that makes some sort of sense! Be interested to know what you make on my take on things.

P.S. Just remembered this - I also fell out both on FB and in real life w/the former singer of the Stretchheads, after I found out about his real-life friendship with Douglas Pearce (Death In June).

Heres a good thread on black metal and political dodgyness just in case you haven't read it..
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/black-metal-that-is-not-politically-dodge.316565/

my question would be - is there any music scene that one would need to walk away from due to political dodgness that circulates within it? Like hardcore has had its moments with the likes of warzone, and agnostic front either holding (quasi?-)fascist views or flirting with the imagary of fascism, not to mention the uber conservative direction that some strands of straightedge did in the 90s; punk white power scene; hip-hop homophobia and misogyny etc...

stretchheads, good band that....
 
Heres a good thread on black metal and political dodgyness just in case you haven't read it..
http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/black-metal-that-is-not-politically-dodge.316565/

my question would be - is there any music scene that one would need to walk away from due to political dodgness that circulates within it? Like hardcore has had its moments with the likes of warzone, and agnostic front either holding (quasi?-)fascist views or flirting with the imagary of fascism, not to mention the uber conservative direction that some strands of straightedge did in the 90s; punk white power scene; hip-hop homophobia and misogyny etc...

stretchheads, good band that....
I have/had (if my mums not cleaned her loft out) their four thingers album - great collection of stupid noise.
 
Back
Top Bottom