swappies & having a laugh
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
Context is all, though, surely. As someone English (though of Irish immigrant stock - like a hell of a lot of "English"), I supported 'my' national team against Portugal in the last Euros - and was joined watching it on the box at home by a Trinidadian bloke and a half Lebanese/half Swedish lass who were also supporting England. Is this a sign of my proto-social patriotic degeneracy?
during the last world cup there was lots of banter between english and polish workers at my workplace, when the poles got knocked out, their fans transferred their alleigence to england and joined us down the pub, and joined the demand for our final game to be shown at work and for all those who wanted to be allowed to watch it
an english bloke of asian origin came in wrapped in a st george cross...
an english bloke of asian origin came in wrapped in a st george cross...
cockneyrebel
New Member
Calum where is anyone saying that you supporting England is "a sign of my proto-social patriotic degeneracy"......but I get the sense from Nigel's posts that the fact that a lot of SP members support England (same goes for WP as it goes) is a sign of a working class organisation. I know that's not what he says, but it's the tone of his posts. It's totally patronising to suggest that working class people will think it's nuts to discuss the link between national sport and nationalism/patriotism/racism.
As it goes there are huge problems in football with racism, and it's no co-incidence that only 1% of premiership fans are from ethnic minorities. I also think there is often a cross over between nationalism and racism/xenophobia when it comes to national teams (as said the cricket test thing is a good example, as is the bollox you get in the media). And it's the exclusivity of nationalism and the overlap it often has with racism that makes most black and Asian people I know feel uncomfortable about the whole St Georges flag bollox you get around national footballing events. Now I don't think they're all paranoid with a chip on their shoulder, I think there is a reason they feel that way. And it's that kind of thing, combined with the whole anthem singing, flag waving shit that put me off supporting England.
As it goes there are huge problems in football with racism, and it's no co-incidence that only 1% of premiership fans are from ethnic minorities. I also think there is often a cross over between nationalism and racism/xenophobia when it comes to national teams (as said the cricket test thing is a good example, as is the bollox you get in the media). And it's the exclusivity of nationalism and the overlap it often has with racism that makes most black and Asian people I know feel uncomfortable about the whole St Georges flag bollox you get around national footballing events. Now I don't think they're all paranoid with a chip on their shoulder, I think there is a reason they feel that way. And it's that kind of thing, combined with the whole anthem singing, flag waving shit that put me off supporting England.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
cockneyrebel said:
and me. Well put.
Certainly, I have argued strongly with regard to that link. There's also a link between football and 'inter-firm' rivalry, which was promoted by the development of factory football teams, as part of the social engineering of capitalism - Fordism, with it's 'social' departments.
What we've seen in recent times (rugby union, cricket, athletics and the proms
) is the celebration of a perceived 'pleasant' form of patriotism/nationalism - largely middle-class, which could turn nasty and that's alway's the danger.bolshiebhoy said:
I read this as implying that those who do support 'their' national teams in imperialist countries do act in a way equivalent to social-patriots. It's like a mirror-image of Norman Tebbit's idiotic "cricket test". As I understand Nigel's post he was just criticising those ultra-lefts who would equate someone supporting their country of origin (in a non colonial situation) to reactionary nationalist politics.
Besides which, grumbling to your mates about the latest shite display by the over-paid primadonna's in white - and the rythmic cycle of hope, expectation, excitement, and inevitable "plucky" defeat seems to strengthen a sense of class solidarity
If the left all decided to support Venezuela or the latest politically correct team of the hour, or became "plastic paddies" (or jocks or taffies) we'd end up looking like muppets. That doesn't mean you become a "rule britannia-no surrender" arsehole either, of course.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
but what about all the people who support manchester united and chelsea and arsenal, for example, from afar, ie abroad? or the much more than 1% of arsenal, chelsea or man utd supporters from ethnick minorities in this country?cockneyrebel said:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
that doesn't quite cut the mustard.flimsier said:
source!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i don't think you quite understand what a premiership team is.MC5 said:
flimsier said:
Bolshie, in response to Nigel saying the most (or all) SPers supported 'their' national teams or didn't give a feck, drawing the following conclusion:
ie. anyone who supports England thereby shows they haven't a "gut instict" to challenge reactionary nationalism where they find it. (or you can't support England without succumbing to jingoistic shite)
Logic:
All members of 'x' believe 'a' or 'b'
if this produces the outcome: 'then no member of 'x' believes 'c''
then it seems to follow that they believe that you cannot logically believe both 'a' or 'b' and 'c' ie. if you support England, you don't show a "gut instinct" to reject jingoism.
Sorry - can you explain how this doesn't follow?
All members of 'x' believe 'a' or 'b'
if this produces the outcome: 'then no member of 'x' believes 'c''
then it seems to follow that they believe that you cannot logically believe both 'a' or 'b' and 'c' ie. if you support England, you don't show a "gut instinct" to reject jingoism.
Sorry - can you explain how this doesn't follow?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Poor logic there actually Calum.Calum McD said:
Let A = Socialist Party Member
B = supports their national side at football
C = doesnt give a fig about football
D = opposes their national team at football
E = has a gut instinct to reject jingoism
So, the argument is put as:
If A then B or C
If A then Not D
If D then E
What conclusions may we draw? There is actually no reason to assume that:
If A then Not E
as it is never stated that
If AND ONLY If D then E
It is also wrong, in logic, to draw the conclusion that B or C is logically contradictory to D.
eg, if B = male, C = female, & D = tory (whilst A = SP member still) then the fallacy is readily exposed.
how can B (supports their national side) not be logically contradictory to D (opposes their national side)?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
cos logic doesnt have to make sense!
sorry, but according to aristotelian/boolean/bourgeois logic - that is how it is.
One could try and tighten it up*, so that B and D were contradictory, but that would still leave C & D, and, anyay, it's E that matters.
* tho actually even that gets tricky, as you would have 'does not support their national side' - which covers C and D. Only explicit contradiction in exactly such a manner (ie the inclusion of the word 'not') is held to be a contradiction in logic. I mean - you hav to account for vacillating centrist gets like me, who both do and don't support the national side!
sorry, but according to aristotelian/boolean/bourgeois logic - that is how it is.
One could try and tighten it up*, so that B and D were contradictory, but that would still leave C & D, and, anyay, it's E that matters.
* tho actually even that gets tricky, as you would have 'does not support their national side' - which covers C and D. Only explicit contradiction in exactly such a manner (ie the inclusion of the word 'not') is held to be a contradiction in logic. I mean - you hav to account for vacillating centrist gets like me, who both do and don't support the national side!
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
aah, but it was Calum's 'logic' I was rebutting - whether that explicitly backs up bb's boint is irrelevant. logic doesn't prove his point, but it doesn't disprove it either.flimsier said:
hey, i had to study the fucker for three years, I've got to try and use it sometime!
Similar threads
