Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
BD – I know a great deal about the rise of Nazism in Germany in the ’30s but not so much about Fascism in this country. I doubt that it was as intense and lasted so long as football violence did in this country (50 years give or take). You’re not going to like this but wasn’t right wing thuggery in the ’70s and ’80s connected with football culture? Actually you’re not really the correct person to answer this given your bias. And so it continues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzFDJOH1kcA
BD – Why do you keep mentioning the Nazis? Was fascist violence a big thing in this country in the ’30s? If your talking about Germany it has no relationship with English cultural history and so is irrelevant to our debate (although,as I’ve said, I don’t know the extent of Mosley’s gangs instigating street violence). It is said that as soon as the Nazis are mentioned that those who reference them know they’re losing the debate. I’ve never heard of hoards of boxing fans rampaging through the streets at weekends – your being desperate and ridiculous comparing the two sports in this respect.
BD – ‘tall tales about their exploits, they are generally massive exaggerations to make money out of their experiences.’
Your denial is at such a level that no evidence will change your mind. And as for your list – none of them entailed weekly mob violence so there is no comparison except, perhaps, Nazism. But, of course, in this country football culture has notoriously always been connected with right-wing politics and its racism. Are you comparing ‘the Battle of Cable Street’ with football hooliganism? Again with the snide insulting remark at the end of your post. What’s the point of me trawling through your endless excuses for the violence and criminality that scarred this country for decades? You keep repeating that it’s ‘only a minority’ that were responsible for this but, as I keep repeating, no other sport has generated such violence in the history of this country. The tribalism generated by the sport is at the heart of the connection – unless you have another explanation?BD & TM – You really are grasping at straws comparing boxing with football. The Bogie classic film you mention is a study in corruption, naivete and career desperation. The mob connection with boxing in the US is well known but what’s that got to do with English football? I notice you haven’t responded to my suggestion that you watch the documentaries entitled ‘The Real Football Factories’ (sorry if I missed it within one of your long rambling posts). If you have seen them do you recognize the ugly violent portrait that they paint, as did the original film. You’ve tried all of your familiar old tricks of insults and ridicule but you still will not admit the darkness that overwhelmed the game season after season, year after year and decade after decade in this country.
BD – You ask for evidence – have you never seen Danny Dyer’s documentary series called ‘The Real Football Factories’? Football gangs have long been associated with all kinds of criminality. When I started this post I did indeed think that nobody, especially a socialist, could possibly whitewash the notoriously criminal and violent history of football culture – but here you are. Your attempts to ridicule anyone who points out the reality of this history is just living in a cloud cuckoo land. I get that it’s your religion but get real and answer me this – why has no other sport been associated with such levels of violence and criminality? Football culture is obviously a barrier to socialist consciousness.
It would seem that any evidence from my own experience, because it’s not shared by ‘15.7 million people’, is irrelevant and not worth your consideration. Can’t you see that many of your examples of sick cultures in this country have parallels in football gangs? The Party is always wondering why socialist consciousness is almost non existent and that’s partly because 15.7 million are obsessed with a commodity called football that brings out the very opposite of the socialist conscious we are trying to achieve – TM’s ‘bread and circuses’. If you can’t see that then you’re at a level of denial that rational debate can’t reach. And why is asking you about the nature of your involvement with the game ‘none of my business?’ Actually my accusation of you ‘white-washing’ football culture was a tongue in cheek joke but it seems it was true. At least I got you to admit, that ‘I didn’t say that all aspects of the game are beyond reproach’ – truly a magnificent understatement.
BD – It seems to me that you’re in denial about the history of football culture in this country. Are you saying there’s absolutely no substance to my criticisms? My father was a football coach/manager in the 1960s and I was dragged along to most games. He was successful and they won several titles so I had a pretty comprehensive knowledge of a game that I had no interest in. I could tell you many horror stories about what happened. When my old man died I thought I’d contact his old club to see if a representative would like to attend his internment – I was ignored, that’s football. Many years later I was in a pub where the local team were celebrating a victory and one of them was actually bragging about how many fouls he had committed – that’s football. Your rose tinted view of the game bares no resemblance to the reality I lived. What actual experience of the game do you have?
‘but your probably too blinkered and stupid to consider these things’. Very comradely statement I must say. I’m sorry I dared to criticize your religion. I think you’re one of those always proving how working class you are and anyone who dares to criticize your taste must be ‘blinkered and stupid’. There was a time when even in the the ‘civilized’ city of Cambridge all the pubs closed down because there was a home game. I’m glad things have improved (according to you) but the upcoming tribal hysteria that will be apparent on Saturday evening will prove my point.
BD – You wouldn’t be attempting to whitewash ‘football culture’ in this country – would you? In my experience it is the sickest, racist, atavistic and most violent sub-culture in this country. The game is boring – continuous one end to the other where a ‘pin-ball machine’ like bit of luck decides the result by a goal or two. And why do you think the mega-rich invest so much money and time in it? Because it provides one of the most successful political distractions available. You’ll be telling me next that the Olympic games brings people and cultures together; no it doesn’t – it imposes a mono culture on the world.
TM – Sports are fine as long as we don’t export the infantile pleasure we get from them into the real world of economics and politics. Of course there won’t be any ‘international’ sports competitions because there won’t be any nations. I quite like the idea that opposing teams will represent different styles and tactics – which, of course, happens now in sports like cricket and football – The ‘West Indies’ play a very different kind of game than do Australia and England as do Brazil in football. It would be a clash of cultures, techniques and bragging rights – all for fun.
Paula – ‘Since the football is currently capturing the minds of millions,…’
That’s the problem – mass distraction using tribalism. We should expose it for what it is, not indulge it.TM – ‘I said it’s a waste of time because you simply repeat things without taking any cognisance of my points.’
Give me one example of where I have done that? Let me try to summarize your position in contrast to my own: You don’t believe that there was a loss of material culture and progress in Western Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. I believe that there is ample evidence of that – whether or not it deserves the title of the ‘Dark Ages’, I agree, is debatable. You believe that the merchant capitalism of the medieval period is commensurate with the industrial capitalism we have today whereas I believe the differences are profound and consequential. Likewise you believe the medieval state was comparable with modern nation states whereas, again, I think the differences are of great political importance. I am interested in your contention that Catholic states did transform into capitalism without the need for a protestant Reformation but wasn’t their own ‘counter Reformation’ a reaction to the need for change resulting from the convulsions of the Reformation? You highlight continuity whereas I emphasize revolutionary change. No doubt you will disagree with this summation but that’s how I see things. Perhaps we can discuss the class nature of the ‘gentleman historians’ of the past and their obvious ideological bias?
