|
Post by stokeramblers on Jun 18, 2012 12:48:21 GMT
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/12/euro-2012-england-fan-muslim-crusadesManchester United fan/Guardian writer massively misses the point and lays into England fans who dress up as St. George. He claims that they're dressed up ''as Knights Templar hordes'' ...''to brandish a sword and recall the brutal and bloody invasion of Muslim lands is portrayed as harmless banter'' Symptomatic of the hand wringing sensitivity from the 'nu football fan'? Should we now avoid making two fingered gestures as they may upset Frenchmen who might've had ancestors on the field at Agincourt? Or does he have a valid point?
|
|
|
Post by y_oh_y_delilah on Jun 18, 2012 12:52:43 GMT
I think the author is thinking far too much about it and should just get on with supporting his country, if that's what he wants to do.
He can rest assured that the lads who donned the St. George fancy dress didn't think too hard about any historical connotations!
|
|
|
Post by DansViews on Jun 18, 2012 12:54:36 GMT
It is racist to support England in anything.
|
|
|
Post by Robo10 on Jun 18, 2012 12:58:06 GMT
Not sure what religion has to do with sport and vice versa
Probably just has papers to sell.
The Irish will be offending little people dressing as Leprechauns, the Danes/Swedish offending anywhere the Vikings invaded, The Italians as Centurians offending most of Europe and Africa etc etc
Just fucking jobsworths
|
|
|
Post by lordeffinghamhunt on Jun 18, 2012 13:01:06 GMT
Its a piece of shit news paper which is wrote, read and supported by a few do gooders hell bent on making every English mans life a misery.
|
|
|
Post by offthewall on Jun 18, 2012 13:01:36 GMT
St George was an Arab, so may be it's a compliment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2012 13:11:06 GMT
unbelievably bad journalism given that he obviously has no historical knowledge whatsoever bless him! maybe we should all agree to kill our own children because a mythical deity asked us to and celebrate it as a festival instead...i'm sure as a practicising muslim he has no unsettling feelings regarding that!
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jun 18, 2012 13:11:48 GMT
If you read the article I think he makes a few good points.
When you read his own personal experience of being targeted with racist chants his attitude is hardly surprising.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 18, 2012 13:19:04 GMT
Its a piece of shit news paper which is wrote, read and supported by a few do gooders hell bent on making every English mans life a misery. Spot on
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jun 18, 2012 13:21:05 GMT
Can a Catholic support Rangers?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2012 13:23:42 GMT
foxy which points do you think are good ones out of interest? the only ones i agree with are re: John Terry personally i am all for multi cultural societies etc. but quite simply if a country is traditionally of a certain religion then i see no need to hide that,be embarassed of it or refuse to accept it simply because it offends people of other faiths who some generations ago decided to settle here...much in the same way that i wouldn't write letters of complaint about or expect any other country that i have chosen to live in (and who have been good enough to accept me through their immigration procedures) to change their culture/history/faith/religion because I don't agree with it. his points re: the crusades are quite simply garbage given that one of the main reasons for the crusades was to take land (yes, to be fair, by force i admit that) that the Muslims had spent hundreds of years forcibly taking themselves by committing just as many brutal and bloody murders. i can completely understand that he may find it hard to follow christianity due to these events (in the same way that it could be argued that following Islam or any other religion is just as difficult due to their own endeavours over the centuries) but to find it difficult to support a country simply because of a costume is taking over-sensitivity to a new level. the simple fact is that St. George is primarily known (factually - so i'm leaving out the bloody dragon ) for the crusades so the costume and depiction of St.George in this outfit is simply for ease of recognition in exactly the same way that St. Nicholas nowadays is depicted in a red and white costume, St. Francis with animals around him, St.Christopher as carrying Jesus etc.etc. they are what the particular Saints are known for and that is all.
|
|
|
Post by madnellie on Jun 18, 2012 13:23:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by philm87 on Jun 18, 2012 13:31:51 GMT
This guy has exactly the same problem as me.
I moved to Wales about three years ago and I still haven't found out whether or not I'm a Welsh Englishman or an English Welshman. I'm having a real crisis of identity so I can easily relate to self-defeating concepts like 'British Muslim'.
What a loada shite.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 18, 2012 13:35:39 GMT
Can you be an English Pakistani? I don't think so, but then if I think that does that make me a racist?
H
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jun 18, 2012 13:37:32 GMT
Sal's response should be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jun 18, 2012 13:39:01 GMT
foxy which points do you think are good ones out of interest? the only ones i agree with are re: John Terry personally i am all for multi cultural societies etc. but quite simply if a country is traditionally of a certain religion then i see no need to hide that,be embarassed of it or refuse to accept it simply because it offends people of other faiths who some generations ago decided to settle here...much in the same way that i wouldn't write letters of complaint about or expect any other country that i have chosen to live in (and who have been good enough to accept me through their immigration procedures) to change their culture/history/faith/religion because I don't agree with it. his points re: the crusades are quite simply garbage given that one of the main reasons for the crusades was to take land (yes, to be fair, by force i admit that) that the Muslims had spent hundreds of years forcibly taking themselves by committing just as many brutal and bloody murders. i can completely understand that he may find it hard to follow christianity due to these events (in the same way that it could be argued that following Islam or any other religion is just as difficult due to their own endeavours over the centuries) but to find it difficult to support a country simply because of a costume is taking over-sensitivity to a new level. the simple fact is that St. George is primarily known (factually - so i'm leaving out the bloody dragon ) for the crusades so the costume and depiction of St.George in this outfit is simply for ease of recognition in exactly the same way that St. Nicholas nowadays is depicted in a red and white costume, St. Francis with animals around him, St.Christopher as carrying Jesus etc.etc. they are what the particular Saints are known for and that is all. I agree that his treatment of the Crusades is superficial and biased in it's own way. Having said that, from what I studied of them, the conclusion I would have drawn was that the Crusaders were motivated chiefly by a lust for land, wealth and power rather than any deep religious fervour. That said he could probably have chosen a better target than the lads in Knight's costumes because I'm fairly sure that the Crusades were the last thing on their minds when they chose their fancy dress. The points I tend to agree with him on are: a) Pretty much all he says about Terry. b) The stuff about his personal experience of idiotic and ignorant chants. c) The bit on the press: It goes hand-in-hand with the jingoistic nationalism we're subjected to by certain sections of the press. Not for nothing is it called a campaign. On one level it's just plain xenophobia. On another level it's a handy reminder that we were at war with many of these beastly foreigners at one time or another, and we killed lots of them and came out on top. I say we, although I'm not entirely sure I want to be included in that number. And I guess the feeling's mutual. To be honest the pic at the top says a lot. What are the odds the lads in the pic are singing about English Spitfires/Hurricanes shooting down German Bombers? A bit like the videos of Stoke fans singing the same dumb shit in a square in Valencia.
|
|
|
Post by digger on Jun 18, 2012 13:40:05 GMT
what a load of shit next time perhaps they should dress up as a onion bhaji
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Jun 18, 2012 13:40:12 GMT
Although a Muslim would have a good case about not attending football matches because racism is still endemic in many supporters, this is just another attempt by those who follow that faith to erode nationalism of any kind unless it suits their agenda. At what point does dress/symbolism spill over into causing offence? He harks back to the Middle Ages to make this point, but if we were to carry it to its logical conclusion, then he would also be offended by our National Flag, which is the Cross of St George. His family chose to live in a land under that banner, so if their principles are so offended, then why didn't they espouse this same bullshit as a reason for not wanting to come here? The reason is simple... it didn't suit their agenda at the time.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by cmc89 on Jun 18, 2012 13:44:18 GMT
Please don't let fan4life see this thread
|
|
|
Post by sutekh on Jun 18, 2012 13:48:14 GMT
Although a Muslim would have a good case about not attending football matches because racism is still endemic in many supporters, this is just another attempt by those who follow that faith to erode nationalism of any kind unless it suits their agenda. At what point does dress/symbolism spill over into causing offence? He harks back to the Middle Ages to make this point, but if we were to carry it to its logical conclusion, then he would also be offended by our National Flag, which is the Cross of St George. His family chose to live in a land under that banner, so if their principles are so offended, then why didn't they espouse this same bullshit as a reason for not wanting to come here? The reason is simple... it didn't suit their agenda at the time. OS. game, set and match.
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Jun 18, 2012 13:49:21 GMT
foxy which points do you think are good ones out of interest? the only ones i agree with are re: John Terry personally i am all for multi cultural societies etc. but quite simply if a country is traditionally of a certain religion then i see no need to hide that,be embarassed of it or refuse to accept it simply because it offends people of other faiths who some generations ago decided to settle here...much in the same way that i wouldn't write letters of complaint about or expect any other country that i have chosen to live in (and who have been good enough to accept me through their immigration procedures) to change their culture/history/faith/religion because I don't agree with it. his points re: the crusades are quite simply garbage given that one of the main reasons for the crusades was to take land (yes, to be fair, by force i admit that) that the Muslims had spent hundreds of years forcibly taking themselves by committing just as many brutal and bloody murders. i can completely understand that he may find it hard to follow christianity due to these events (in the same way that it could be argued that following Islam or any other religion is just as difficult due to their own endeavours over the centuries) but to find it difficult to support a country simply because of a costume is taking over-sensitivity to a new level. the simple fact is that St. George is primarily known (factually - so i'm leaving out the bloody dragon ) for the crusades so the costume and depiction of St.George in this outfit is simply for ease of recognition in exactly the same way that St. Nicholas nowadays is depicted in a red and white costume, St. Francis with animals around him, St.Christopher as carrying Jesus etc.etc. they are what the particular Saints are known for and that is all. I agree that his treatment of the Crusades is superficial and biased in it's own way. Having said that, from what I studied of them, the conclusion I would have drawn was that the Crusaders were motivated chiefly by a lust for land, wealth and power rather than any deep religious fervour. That said he could probably have chosen a better target than the lads in Knight's costumes because I'm fairly sure that the Crusades were the last thing on their minds when they chose their fancy dress. The points I tend to agree with him on are: a) Pretty much all he says about Terry. b) The stuff about his personal experience of idiotic and ignorant chants. c) The bit on the press: It goes hand-in-hand with the jingoistic nationalism we're subjected to by certain sections of the press. Not for nothing is it called a campaign. On one level it's just plain xenophobia. On another level it's a handy reminder that we were at war with many of these beastly foreigners at one time or another, and we killed lots of them and came out on top. I say we, although I'm not entirely sure I want to be included in that number. And I guess the feeling's mutual. To be honest the pic at the top says a lot. What are the odds the lads in the pic are singing about English bombers shooting down German planes? A bit like the videos of Stoke fans singing the same dumb shit in a square in Valencia. Bombers tend not to shoot planes down. The RAF from England (Perhaps in Spitfires/Hurricanes) would shoot one down (A German bomber) Then there'd be a specified number of bombers in the air (minus of course the one that has just been shot down) And so the cycle would continue.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jun 18, 2012 13:52:06 GMT
I agree that his treatment of the Crusades is superficial and biased in it's own way. Having said that, from what I studied of them, the conclusion I would have drawn was that the Crusaders were motivated chiefly by a lust for land, wealth and power rather than any deep religious fervour. That said he could probably have chosen a better target than the lads in Knight's costumes because I'm fairly sure that the Crusades were the last thing on their minds when they chose their fancy dress. The points I tend to agree with him on are: a) Pretty much all he says about Terry. b) The stuff about his personal experience of idiotic and ignorant chants. c) The bit on the press: It goes hand-in-hand with the jingoistic nationalism we're subjected to by certain sections of the press. Not for nothing is it called a campaign. On one level it's just plain xenophobia. On another level it's a handy reminder that we were at war with many of these beastly foreigners at one time or another, and we killed lots of them and came out on top. I say we, although I'm not entirely sure I want to be included in that number. And I guess the feeling's mutual. To be honest the pic at the top says a lot. What are the odds the lads in the pic are singing about English bombers shooting down German planes? A bit like the videos of Stoke fans singing the same dumb shit in a square in Valencia. Bombers tend not to shoot planes down. The RAF from England (Perhaps in Spitfires/Hurricanes) would shoot one down (A German bomber) Then there'd be a specified number of bombers in the air (minus of course the one that has just been shot down) And so the cycle would continue. Ahhhhhhhh. Now I see what I did!!!! Whoops. Thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jun 18, 2012 13:54:15 GMT
I agree that his treatment of the Crusades is superficial and biased in it's own way. Having said that, from what I studied of them, the conclusion I would have drawn was that the Crusaders were motivated chiefly by a lust for land, wealth and power rather than any deep religious fervour. That said he could probably have chosen a better target than the lads in Knight's costumes because I'm fairly sure that the Crusades were the last thing on their minds when they chose their fancy dress. The points I tend to agree with him on are: a) Pretty much all he says about Terry. b) The stuff about his personal experience of idiotic and ignorant chants. c) The bit on the press: It goes hand-in-hand with the jingoistic nationalism we're subjected to by certain sections of the press. Not for nothing is it called a campaign. On one level it's just plain xenophobia. On another level it's a handy reminder that we were at war with many of these beastly foreigners at one time or another, and we killed lots of them and came out on top. I say we, although I'm not entirely sure I want to be included in that number. And I guess the feeling's mutual. To be honest the pic at the top says a lot. What are the odds the lads in the pic are singing about English bombers shooting down German planes? A bit like the videos of Stoke fans singing the same dumb shit in a square in Valencia. Bombers tend not to shoot planes down. The RAF from England (Perhaps in Spitfires/Hurricanes) would shoot one down (A German bomber) Then there'd be a specified number of bombers in the air (minus of course the one that has just been shot down) And so the cycle would continue. Although having said that...... ......I'm pretty sure the lads in the turrets on Lancasters probably knobbled their fair share of Messerschmits during the war.
|
|
|
Post by stokeramblers on Jun 18, 2012 14:03:47 GMT
Bombers tend not to shoot planes down. The RAF from England (Perhaps in Spitfires/Hurricanes) would shoot one down (A German bomber) Then there'd be a specified number of bombers in the air (minus of course the one that has just been shot down) And so the cycle would continue. Although having said that...... ......I'm pretty sure the lads in the turrets on Lancasters probably knobbled their fair share of Messerschmits during the war. I'm sure they weighed in with a few k's. However I don't recall us in the square in Valencia singing 'And the tail gunner of the Lancaster shot one down, and the tail gunner...' ;D
|
|
|
Post by foxysgloves on Jun 18, 2012 14:06:29 GMT
Although having said that...... ......I'm pretty sure the lads in the turrets on Lancasters probably knobbled their fair share of Messerschmits during the war. I'm sure they weighed in with a few k's. However I don't recall us in the square in Valencia singing 'And the tail gunner of the Lancaster shot one down, and the tail gunner...' ;D Which is a shame because that would have been much more impressive. Especially if the following verses had been.... "If the side-gunner....." "If the nose-gunner....." "If the bottom-gunner ....."
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Jun 18, 2012 14:20:01 GMT
What a load of guff that article is.
|
|
|
Post by skip on Jun 18, 2012 14:23:31 GMT
bloody hell, read the article. He didn't say he can't support England, he said that he finds it difficult. He's even attended England games. I also find supporting England difficult. I remember thinking on Friday night when we went two one down that if we lost I could at least stop pretending that I didn't think that there were players in our team that are out and out ****s.
I don't care which team/country they support, people dressed up as Knights, Leprechauns or heaven knows what else just look like bell-ends to me. Having said that, it's fancy dress - and ultimately that's all national identity is nowadays, a stupid party mentality - not a self conscious piss take of Arabs, Turks or Muslims. And having said that I'm not a mind reader so goodness knows what possesses someone to dress up like a bloody Knight.
p.s. Jerusalem to replace God Save The Queen as the National Anthem please.
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Jun 18, 2012 14:36:59 GMT
I don't give a shit what muslims think about!
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jun 18, 2012 14:41:54 GMT
He also says he well aware that nobody is setting out to offend anyone by dressing up.
It's an opinion piece, he's just saying he doesn't feel very accepted by the Ingurland crew for various reasons, which is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Jun 18, 2012 14:43:50 GMT
Can you be an English Pakistani? I don't think so, but then if I think that does that make me a racist? H Of course you can, just like you can be an Italian American or a Portuguese Brazilian.
|
|