Seen
Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,923
- Points
- 113
For anyone who may be interested, here's a few articles which counter the hypocritical outcry witnessed in the wankstained media over the last few days. They are long but all well worth a read imo...
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/spo...-nothing-to-do-with-being-a-boss-8559571.html
http://optimumshaboogie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-manufacture-of-outrage.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/spo...-nothing-to-do-with-being-a-boss-8559571.html
Let’s start with a quote out of context. Terrorism is “justifiable and . . . effective”. Who said that? Answer: David Miliband, who this week resigned as vice-chairman and non-executive director of Sunderland AFC in protest at the appointment of Paolo di Canio as manager.
Miliband is off to New York to work for a charity. At least, that’s the idea. If Manhattan society is as screwy as English football, then he’ll do well to make it through customs at JFK. Being a terrorist sympathiser in the Empire State is about as welcome as, well, being a fascist in charge of a Premier League football club.
Aha! Satire! Of course Miliband is not really a terrorist sympathiser. What I did here, see, was go on Wikipedia, find the first controversial quote from Dave’s political past, extract the most provocative line, strip it of all context or nuance and start stomping around as though Something Should Be Done.
It’s the first thing they teach you in journalism school.
Which is why the storm of generally confected outrage whipped up this week over Di Canio’s appointment at Sunderland has been so effective.
Certainly at times in his past Di Canio has flirted with some form of neo-fascist belief and organisation. He has a Mussolini tattoo. There is a famous picture of him giving a Roman salute to the Irriducibili — Lazio’s Ultras. In 2005 he said he was “a fascist, not a racist”.
Of course, this is not new news. Di Canio has been Di Canio for a long time — playing for Celtic, Sheffield Wednesday, West Ham and Charlton from 1996-04, and managing Swindon from May 2011 until last February. The timing of this storm of indignation is bemusing at the very least.
Moreover, it is not wholly clear what Di Canio’s political views represent in practice — or indeed, what they ever were. There have been some very unconvincing arguments that package up his dalliances among the Italian far right with British football’s attempts to police racism, and a dismally sentimental attempt to roast him with rent-a-quotes from Battle of Britain veterans.
But since Di Canio yesterday took the highly sensible decision to distance himself unambiguously from fascism and commit to not make any political remarks — fascist or otherwise — in public; and since the remarks he has made in the past about his political ideology have in any case been confused, contradictory and, as far-right rhetoric goes, fairly soft-core, it does raise the question: what are we really getting worked up about?
Whatever thought-crimes his accusers think he has committed, Di Canio has persistently denied the greatest transgression in English football right now: that of being a racist.
His expressed views on Mussolini —that the dictator was a complex and often misunderstood perpetrator of evil deeds — only reflect the ambiguity about Il Duce’s memory that seems to be widespread in Italian popular culture and which is discussed in the latest historical literature.
The photograph of the straight-arm salute to the Irriducibili is undeniably ugly. But here’s the thing. Even if Di Canio is a ‘fascist’ — however we define that fractured ideology — it is not clear how this pertains to English football.
Is he going to goose-step Sunderland out against Chelsea on Sunday in black shirts? Adopt a signing policy based strictly on racial purity? Force Titus Bramble to get an Oswald Mosley tattoo? Or are we simply saying that anyone suspected of holding subversive political views, private or not, endangers the famously enlightened spirit of football and thereby justifies hounding them with all the tools of political and media pressure? That’s not fascism. It’s McCarthyism.
Let’s leave aside the fact that a few broadly fascistic traits (badge-kissing unreason, fondness for discipline, a dictatorial streak) have been clearly evident in several of England’s most successful recent football managers.
As Swindon’s former chairman Jeremy Wray pointed out this week, Di Canio’s political views — whatever they are at present — have not bled into his short managerial career to date.
Of course, that could change. If Sunderland survive in the Premier League on the last day of this season and Di Canio busts out a rendition of the Giovinezza over the tannoy at White Hart Lane, then I suspect we shall have a problem.
But I strongly suspect he will not. So we are left with a lot of cant about not very much, another step forward in the attempt to slaughter people by manufactured offence-taking, and some rather good jokes about Sunderland’s training running on time. At least we have those.
http://optimumshaboogie.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-manufacture-of-outrage.html
“If this does not reflect your view, you should understand / That those who own the papers also own this land.” (Billy Bragg)
At a time when coalition reforms fully kick in and potentially change the social landscape in ways we haven’t seen for decades, and North Korea and the USA rattle their ever more nuclear sabres at each other, the news and social media has been utterly consumed with the appointment of a football manager. Moreover, this consumption has taken the form of an almighty scramble for the moral high ground, sans any kind of decent research, from some of our foremost media institutions, and has led to a veritable smorgasbord of smug moralising, ignorant hectoring, and a display of lowest common denominator knee-jerking that puts our nation to shame.
There are some facts – indeed there are quite a few, but one of the most disappointing aspects of this whole affair is the selective reporting and acknowledgement of these facts. Here are some of them:
• Paolo Di Canio did make fascist arm gestures while playing for Lazio – there is pictorial evidence. He received FIFA censure for this.
• Paolo Di Canio is quoted as saying “I am a fascist, not a racist”
• Paolo Di Canio has been appointed manager of Sunderland AFC, having previously managed at Swindon Town.
• David Miliband has resigned his position as vice-chairman of SAFC due to Di Canio’s “past political statements”.
Di Canio, and the club’s appointment of him, have been the subject of scrutiny, attack, vitriol and angry moralising ever since it was announced on Sunday 31st March. I write this in the evening of April 2nd, having been witness to a maelstrom of media activity some of which boggles the mind.
You can trace much of the ire to the pictures and the “I am a fascist, not a racist” line. The pictures are undeniable, and I for one do not condone that act from anyone in any situation. Many have tried to say it’s a ROMAN salute not a FASCIST one, and it was IN Rome, and therefore has a different context, but once photographed it goes beyondROME, and such an excuse is therefore more in line with the “It’s not offensive in Uruguay” line used by Luis Suarez in his racial abuse case – and equally as unacceptable.
Issues begin however with the quoting of the fascist / racist phrase. This quote was taken from 2005, but actually is taken from a headline, when in the actual story contains the phrase ''Infact I have never said 'I am a fascist not a racist'..''. There was more explanation than that offered, but whilst this does add SOME context, the actual point is that people have been reductive even in their use of this phrase. They want to REMOVE context completely so simple agendas can be served.
Even to say “I am X and not Y” DEMANDS you put context on it; the comparison between two items is there to make a distinction, which in turn requires – from the balanced enquirer, the person looking for the true meaning and not something to fit an already established viewpoint – taking steps to understand why that distinction is being made. What is meant by the distinction between a fascist and a racist is crucial BECAUSE so many people conflate the two, but many critics of Di Canio have simply stopped at the word “fascist” and then concluded ‘so he MUST be a racist’, or he ‘must be a Nazi’.
People have rushed to judgement without exploring what fascism – in and of itself – actually means. There isn’t one ‘type’, so the conflation with ‘Nazi’ isn’t accurate, and it does NOT follow that a fascist (however objectionable a principle it might be) is ALWAYS a racist. ITALIAN fascism has racial theories, but not ones that are inherently based on racial superiority - Italian Fascism emphasised that race was bound by spiritual and cultural foundations, and identified a racial hierarchy based on spiritual and cultural factors.[40] While Italian Fascism based its conception of race on spiritual and cultural factors, Mussolini explicitly rejected notions that biologically "pure" races were still considered a relevant factor in racial classification (Wikipedia).
More galling, Di Canio himself has subsequently looked to clarify HIS position – in The Independent in December 2011 you can find the following:
While it's a matter of record that Di Canio has previously declared his sympathy with the historical tradition of fascism, such pronouncements don't represent an area of his life he wishes to relive or revisit. There is no denying the DVX tattoo on his shoulder (the Latin appellation for Benito Mussolini). It's the symbolic expression of an opinion expressed in his autobiography, in a passage which has frequently been misquoted so as to appear more incendiary than it actually is. "I am fascinated by Mussolini," Di Canio wrote. "I think he was a deeply misunderstood individual. He deceived people. His actions were often vile. But all this was motivated by a higher purpose. He was basically a very principled individual. Yet he turned against his sense of right and wrong. He compromised his ethics."
And in his autobiography he said:
Both Italy and Britain are multi-cultural countries, with immigrants from all over the globe. In many parts of London, for example, there are more blacks and Asians than whites. They have integrated into this country, they are as English or Scottish or Welsh as the next guy, without giving up their own culture. In Italy, too many immigrants come over and act as if they were back in their own countries. They make little effort to fit in and, to be fair, we Italians make little effort to integrate them.
Our government does little for immigrants, so they simply do things their way. If we’re not careful, in ten years’ time Italy could be a Muslim country. I have nothing against Muslims but I don’t want my Italian culture to disappear. If immigrants want to come to Italy and want to part of the country, want to be part of Italian culture, want to be Italian, that’s great. I don’t care if they are black, yellow, pink, or green. I would love it if an immigrant could come to Italy and, after a few years, say, “This is my country. I am Italian”.
THEN I was also pointed towards
Di Canio: “I’m not a Fascist” (but Italy would be in a ‘better situation’ under Mussolini)
By Andy McSmith
Tuesday, 2 April 2013 at 12:26 pm
Is Paolo Di Canio still a Fascist? Right now, he is not saying, because he only wants to talk about football, but there is a rambling interview in a 2002 book West Ham: Irons in the Soul by Pete May (available as an e-book) in which he can be said to have answered the question:
“I never said I was a fan of Mussolini but for the media it is more easy to make the polemic. I said that after Mussolini no one political man was a patriot or a nationalist because nationalism is not equal to being a Nazi. English people are very proud of their nationalism too; my nationalism means you are proud because you are Italian….
“In Italy if the right or left win the election they don’t think in three or four years time we will give the people a better society…They don’t think tomorrow we are going to work for the people, they think tomorrow we start the publicity for the next election. They have no vision. With Mussolini I’m sure we would have had a better situation, but not in a wrong way, not with a union with the Nazis because I am not a Fascist. Then was a different time, nobody wants war, now we want peace…”
“Black or white or yellow people, gay people, men or women, they can come to my house and be my friend because I am not xenophobic.”(my bold type)
I think it is CLEAR from all of this readily available information, even for those of us not exalted enough to be actual journalists, what Paolo Di Canio’s viewpoint is, and it isn’t the most scary set of principles I have ever come across – yet he is being painted as a card carrying member of The Right Club. Maybe this accounts for his reluctance to explain further – the truth IN HIS OWN WORDS is already out there. Yet he is being vilified FOR COMMENTS REPORTED IN THE MEDIA (“He said it, it must be true; he said it, so he IS a fascist”), but the vilifiers REFUSE TO RECOGNISE INFORMATION FROM THE MEDIA WHEN IT DOESN’T FIT THEIR AGENDA.
Several media outlets and individuals have DEMANDED clarification from Di Canio and SAFC in the last 24 hours, (many still are as I write), for example:
Dan Roan@danroan
Stormy Di Canio press conference ends with manager angrily dismissing "ridiculous & pathetic" controversy over his appointment &...
[next tweet] refusing to clarify whether he remains a fascist. I asked him several times to do so, but he referred to his statement yesterday.
Kevin Maguire@Kevin_Maguire1
.@sundersays @MirrorFootball No di Canio #safc presser today. Head in sand tactic. He should explain current thinking and let fans decide
Jennifer de Santos@JendeSantos
Where's the petition to get Di Canio out of English football? #UAF #KickItOut #Sunderland
Premier League News@PLNewsNow
BREAKING NEWS: Kick It Out call on Sunderland and Di Canio to clarify anti-discrimination stance http://dlvr.it/39Yvmc
WHY is further clarification needed when Di Canio has gone on record to explain his views? Why can people NOT do the most basic of research before they make up their minds and /or jump to conclusions? There is enough in the above to assure any level headed and intelligent person that there is nothing in Di Canio’s views to suggest support for the sinister end of fascism.
Given Mussolini moved from being anti-racial purity towards a racially divisive stance as Hitler grew more powerful and influential, this can be seen as an example of the kinds of ethics Di Canio derides Mussolini for betraying. The same could be said of any suggestion of anti-semitism - Of the 117 original members of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento, founded on 23 March 1919, five were Jewish.[59] Since the movement's early years, there were a small number of prominent openly anti-Semitic Fascists such as Roberto Farinacci.[60] There were also prominent Fascists who completely rejected anti-Semitism, such as Italo Balbo who lived in Ferrara that had a substantial Jewish community that was accepted and anti-Semitic incidents were rare in the city.[61] Mussolini initially had no anti-Semitic statements in his policies. (Wikipedia)[my bold type]
The rush and push to claim the moral high ground has ridden roughshod over any such effort to understanding, and over basic journalistic practises for many people, as they have taken the shortest path possible to reach their conclusions. Churchill admired Mussolini and in 1942 called him a “great man”; he also said "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievement.”. See how easy it would be to take those statements and to the uninitiated or lazy create a picture of a man voted the ‘Greatest Ever Englishman’ as exactly the type of political extremist they try to paint Di Canio as (and if I wanted to I could back it up with racist, anti-semitic and pro-eugenics quotes).
Many people have asked why, given Di Canio has managed in Britain after 2005, has this all not been as much of an issue until now. Significantly it has come to light that the BBC Sport website published a column by Di Canio in 2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19431338 ), and also interviewed him for their Football Focus programme just a few short weeks ago when he was linked with and asked about the then vacant manager’s job at Reading FC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21800658). ON NEITHER OCCASION WAS ANY REFERENCE MADE TO HIS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY NOR WAS HE ASKED TO CLARIFY OR JUSTIFY ANY PREVIOUS COMMENTS. In fact they refer to him in the column as “one of football's most controversial and colourful characters”.
Given writers such as the Pat Murphy and the above mentioned Dan Roan have both, via Twitter, been EXTREMELY vociferous on the appropriateness of the Di Canio appointment and the issue of his clarification of his views, why was it not such an issue for the BBC in THOSE instances? Why was he not robustly asked to explain his political views then? I enquired with the former about why it was only an issue now and was rebuffed with the claim that he wasn’t a spokesperson for the BBC. Mr Murphy’s Twitter address is @patmurphybbc, and both have in their profile description that these accounts are “official” BBC accounts. There is no familiar “views are authors own” disclaimer in either case. Therefore the rebuttal is disingenuous. Mr Murphy also rushed to claim 12,000 SAFC fans had written to the A LOVE SUPREME fanzine expressing that they would not return to the club due to the Di Canio issue. This turned out to be communications to the fanzine TOTALLING 12,000 WORDS, and whilst Mr Murphy did in fairness apologise for the error, this was AFTER he had tweeted the information in the following exchange:
{TWITTER NAME WITHELD} @patmurphybbc give it a rest Pat concentrate on the Villa fiasco! It was ok for PdC to manage Swindon and did very well too #doublestandards
Pat Murphy@patmurphybbc21h
Tell that to the 12,000 who've told a Sunderland fanzine they won't be going back to S of Light.And don't tell me what to write
He claimed he had gone to check the veracity of the source and then corrected himself and apologised – it is strange to do so AFTER publishing the information and also to leave it up there knowing it might not be accurate.
Similarly, you had to not blink for about 30 seconds on the afternoon of the 2nd in order to see when, on Sky Sports News, a reporter indicated he had been informed David Miliband had contacted SAFC to indicate he didn’t think Di Canio was a racist or a fascist. This has not however been subsequently denied or any more widely reported. You’d think this was quite relevant as the Miliband resignation was for many the jumping off point and/or the moral foundation for their own moral hand-wringing. Yet no – nothing. People are still pushing the fascist agenda and demanding explanations. Less vocal still (ie silent) are those within the media who are questioning why West Ham United should be given the Olympic Stadium when their current ground has 'The Paolo DI Canio Lounge' in its executive suites. Once again, why were his political affiliations not being questioned here - why were WHUFC not being repeatedly asked why they named the lounge in this way? Are they being asked if they will have the same facility within the new stadium? Are they going to change the name of the lounge given David Sullivan (shudder) has announced his moral indignation about the appointment?
And that was where this blog actually was supposed to end. Not that there had been any resolution as such, but it seemed the right place to down the pen, and then leave the piece overnight to reflect, review and publish the next day. Yet the story has continued to twist and turn, not so much driven by its own momentum as much as it is BEING continually driven by those who won't let anything go. The 3rd April saw another statement from Di Canio through SAFC - now, I'd like you to keep the demands and accusations of the media as detailed above in your thoughts as you read this:
Statement from Paolo Di Canio
Published: 03 April, 2013
by Sunderland AFC
Head coach speaks.
PAOLO DI CANIO, Wednesday 03 April, 2013
“I have clearly stated that I do not wish to speak about matters other than football, however, I have been deeply hurt by the attacks on the football club.
“This is a historic, proud and ethical club and to read and hear some of the vicious and personal accusations is painful. I am an honest man, my values and principles come from my family and my upbringing.
"I feel that I should not have to continually justify myself to people who do not understand this, however I will say one thing only - I am not the man that some people like to portray.
“I am not political, I do not affiliate myself to any organisation, I am not a racist and I do not support the ideology of fascism. I respect everyone.
“I am a football man and this and my family are my focus. Now I will speak only of football.”
Given the clamour has been for clarification of Di Canio's political views, I'd vouch that this statement provides that. I'd go one further and argue it also merely replicates much of which I have referred to in examples above, which just goes to further emphasise the point that the clarification has been clear to see all along - had that fact not inconvenienced too many agendas. However, despite this acquiescence to the media's demands, there has been no let up in the scrutiny, no end of attacks on Di Canio, indeed no end to people calling for clarity. TalkSPORT ran a debate with Danny Kelly and Martin Lipton which whilst making reference to the statement actually played out as if it had been pre-recorded from the night before. Others have gone quiet, especially some of those from the BBC who have been more interested in correcting the spelling of those who tweeted than engaging in the debate they were holding with vice-like surety the day before. It was even suggested on Talk SPORT that if this had been statement #1 from SAFC then the whole debacle would have been avoided, but given their continued raking over the same issues, that is patently not true.
In some measure this brings me back full circle - my thoughts return to the photograph. This is the one concrete piece of evidence, in the sense that you can't claim to have been misquoted (and I'm pretty sure it hasn't been photoshopped). It was a stupid and distasteful thing to do, and does and will have offended many people, even if those receiving it wouldn't have seen it as so - yet there is more than enough evidence to explain, clarify and contextualise the words that have gone with it, only for those words to be ignored as per individual agendas. It smacks of our culture of revenge - we clamour for those we perceive as being wrong to apologise, they do, and the vilification just increases as we now have their head on a platter. And as such, these commentators who can have holes the size of The Stadium Of Light driven through their arguments refuse to climb down, lest they receive the same treatment.
For a long time now, journalists and writers have bemoaned the distance between the modern footballer and the average fan – right now, the smug superiority of certain members of the media, where they trot out ill-informed, badly formulated opinions and plainly inaccurate ‘facts’ without feeling any need to justify or correct them, only serves to illustrate they perpetuate a similar gap between themselves and those who read their material. We are there to consume it, and not to question. They do not feel bound by issues of consistency, balance, fairness, just bound by the need to cling barnacle-like to the populist high ground at the earliest opportunity. As another blogger has put it “The national press are NOT seeking 'clarification' from Di Canio. They're seeking vindication for the drivel they have already penned." (Michael Graham @Capt_Fishpaste).
just cos the Liverpool game is obviously tosh