I'm impressed by all the people in my area whose cars have been sporting both England and Ghana flags, one on each side. The subversion of nationalism in action. It's like they're saying "look, we don't actually have to choose."
(Perhaps I should start writing touchy-feely liberal columns about multiculturalism for the Guardian.)
It is more absurd, naturally, to pretend that supporting England is a singularly progressive cause, dragooning poor old Orwell into service for the ocassion.
It was also be entirely, specifically wrong, as - departing from his usual practice - Orwell felt it would be better if "our" national representative got beaten. (Check out the end of "The Sporting Spirit" for confirmation of this claim.)
"indeed, I'm fairly certain there isn't a single instance - where anybody-but-England has advanced the cause of socialism."
Perhaps in Scotland or Wales
(1) Supporting England is going to lead to an awful lot of suffering for an awful lot of footie fans because
(2) The England football team are crap. They play like they're wearing clogs and blindfolds and, therefore, will be trounced when they come up against decent opposition. And
(3) Nationalism and patriotism is the preserve of the right. There is nothing progressive in English nationalism. There is no way any leftie who wanted to out patriotise (is that a word, it is now) the right could succeed, without dropping the politics. There is no sense in fighting on territory favouring your opponent.
My advice is hold tight. Football tournaments are 5 weeks out of 104. England won't win. So, don't go overboard on the polemics Normal service will be resumed shortly.
I agree with the general sentiments. It's not that important. But... but... (that was dramatic wasn't it) it did strike me as significant that in a news report on England's defeat of Paraguay there was footage of England fans' reaction to the England goal - and most prominent amongst these was footage of Brit soldiers in basra watching the match. Of course I'm not suggesting any conspiracy here, but there's some kind of spontaneously drawn link between England football (our lads) and British army (our boys) in the world cup news coverage narrative.
Hmm
Which is why I think a 'support England, but with no illusions' approach may work. That way I don't have to check myself each time 22 years of unquestioned social conditioning kicks in and I get dewy eyed seeing David Beckham smiling down reasuringly at the young mascot he's leading onto the pitch. Or I find myself shouting at the telly when the bastard later bungles yet another free kick. I don't want to support England, but in the heat of the moment, I sometimes can't help it. Is there a name for this type of residual Nationalism? And don't say it's the muck of ages.
Following the amount of pseudy "anyone but England" crap that's been churned out by certain sections of the left lately, I read this with some trepidation.
And yet much to my surprise Meaders, I found that completely agree with you. On this one issue at least 
You really do make me angry sometimes voltaires, it just the smug style you have 
"pseudy" "crap" "churned out"
Hmmmmm..
Give us a kiss, Morby... and sing along "vin-da-loo, vin-da-loo, vin-da-loo-vin-da-loo-na-na" ;D
Yes, incidentally, I was referring to "pseudy crap" along the lines of "oh ya Tristan, aaawbviously one simply CAN'T support England in the World Cup, just not the proletarian thing to do, don't you know".
Tofu burger for the gentleman?
V
I was referring to "pseudy crap" along the lines of "oh ya Tristan, aaawbviously one simply CAN'T support England in the World Cup, just not the proletarian thing to do, don't you know".
This is funny, but not how you intended it to be. (You've not met morbo, have you?)
Let me guess, he's like Rab C Nesbitt only even less genteel?
... and also a great fan of cartoons, if I've correctly traced the nickname?
Oh my god! You have met Morbo.
Meaders - I happen to think tactically you were right during the Respect meeting but in principle you are wrong. Surely you must be worried by the fact that 'Voltaire's priest' agrees with you? I have defended 'Anyone but England' here:
http://histomatist.blogspot.com/...get-
behind.html
It's a pointless argument over a meaningless issue. There's no "principle" involved here: I don't want to have pointless arguments over meaningless issues. It's a simple tactical question.
Hmm I'm not so sure there is no 'principle' at all at work here.
It is no surprise that 'socialists' like the AWL are so openly pro-supporting England while British troops are engaged in occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.
Please read roobin's latest stuff on throughthescarydoor.blogspot.com on this, look at his latest post, it's deserving of some comments, far better said I could have done, shows it really IS a serious issue not a meaningless one
Pfooey.
Is nationalism a meaningful issue? Yes.
Is provoking argumnets about supporting England meaningful? No.
Well, I don't feel any necessity that I ought, on anti-imperialist grounds, to root against the U.S. side. I am not wildly enthusiastic about them, however. For one thing, they are not better than they are in part because so much more talent ends up in American football. What a waste....
FWIW, I doubt they are going thru, and am just hoping for a decent game against Ghana. After that I will revert to rooting for Brazil, as I have since 1982 (after all, with training in philosophy, how could I not root for a team with a captain named Socrates I sat watching the Brazil-Italy game in 1982 on the telly with five Brazilians. They were horrified at the result, but I, for my part, thought it was a great game.
The U.S. women are a different matter: I will cheerfully cheer them on when they play in the Women's World Cup next year in Beijing. I am hoping for a U.S.--Brazil final
Snowball
I wasn't aware that it was the AWL "line" to support England LOL - you might wanna listen more to what people actually say.
This really is a stupid argument - the idea that the cause of progressive politics will be advanced one inch because a bunch of tossers in Hampstead decide to cheer for "anyone but England" as a "political gesture", is a joke.
Personally I'm far more interested in people's stance on other issues like, oh you know, the war in Iraq, the NHS, open border immigration, gay rights, stuff like that.
Support whoever you want in the world cup, but don't make out it's some grand stance on principle, when it clearly isn't.
...the idea that the cause of progressive politics will be advanced one inch because a bunch of tossers in Hampstead...
Another boring, boring cliche. Try thinking for yourself.
Right back atcha. I'm not the one in a trot group
...and another one. Go on, call me a tofu-munching do-gooder and complete the set.
LMAO, that was actually quite a cute response.
You alphabetti-spaghetti munching do-middlinger, you
And in fairness you haven't yet accused me of being in the AWL or called me a "sectarian" for not being in the SWP, so you're doing a fair job of avoiding the cliches yourself.
Fucking AWL sectarians...........
........Morbo?!
Uh-oh - I thought Morbo and Roobin were the same person.
Someone should PM me and explain who they both are.
And not you, Meaders. You don't even answer your bloody normal emails.
(Erm... what's a PM?)
Following the amount of pseudy "anyone but England" crap that's been churned out by certain sections of the left lately
I wonder if the gent can produce three examples of this? Shouldn't be hard, given that there's apparently so much of it.
One reason I don't support England is because of all the self-pitying shite that is generated, as if it were really hard to fly an England flag because of the all-persuasive PC police, etc etc etc. Pretending that normal, standard conformist saloon-bar opinions were somehow dangerous to express is a common and tedious theme of our times and it seems to me that a lot of the flag-waving feeds and depends on this.
Meaders - while I think you're right in certain respects, I also think there's no better, no more appropriate time to talk about nationalism and to call it into question. And the fact that any attempt to do so is met with a mountain of shite makes it all the more important.
I like your point about Saloon Bar opinions. Lads mags have marketed this quite well by taking ideas that have been prevelant in society for years, pushing them a little further, then selling them back to people with a subversive veneer.
It's a bit like that bloody stupid car advert that says 'The return of the man.', as if all men have been conquered by Two Ronnies style 'Worm that turned' dominatrix women.
I have switched my support away from England for the following reasons.
1./ Meaders..... an issue like nationalism can be argued very easily, especially if you're in a restaurant in a political environment amoungst allies. I don't think taking an 'Anyone but England.' approach would have made you look miserable.
They'd have probably thought 'Hmmm, this is a refreshing opinion coming from a white bloke.'
2./ Even the commentators are trying to equate victory in the world cup with the war in Iraq. During the Sweden match one of them said 'Of course, our most important viewers are our brave solidiers stationed in Iraq and Afganistan.' A victory for England wouldn't cheer them up nearly as much as being pulled out.
3./ I just feel dirty supporting them. I lapsed back into it for old times sake and found it quite hard. Call me what you like, but I'm off to buy a Ghanian flag.
4./ If England win, lots of the fans will sing 'God save the Queen.' AAAAARRRRRGGGGGH!
Justin;
1) Keith Flett's article in Socialist Worker
2) Mike Marqusee's argument against Mark Perryman in Red Pepper
3) My personal favourite: http://anyonebutengland.blogspot.com/
I could go on ad infinitum, but you get the picture
Correction: Flett's article was in the Morning Star, not Socialist Worker. My mistake, but I'm sure you can understand why I got the two mixed up
Roobin is adam and morbo is dave, we both share a studenty, grotty flat in stoke newington, you're welcome to come around for pizza, anytime!
Motmarecy -
1. As it happens, I did get into a discussion about England, nationalism, and whatnot. But I didn't do this on the basis of provoking an argument about it.
2. But is the official version accepted? This interpretation will be disputed, quite probably along soft nationalist/reformist lines (eg it's not English to do this) that an immediate "anyone but England" position removes you from.
3. I don't support England and nor do I suggest anyone should.
4. The national anthem is an embarrassment regardless of circumstances. (Although, in a revolutionary defeatist sense, England ought to have a shit national anthem.)
Justin - fine, but with sensitivity.
Actually, he's Lenny and I'm Karl. We're members of the secret order of No-Homers.
What was pseudy about Mike Marquese's argument? Or are we assuming that it must have been pseudy because of what he said?
Mind you, I'd have put it better than he did, not that he put it badly. But I've been honing the argument for twenty years. Perhaps one day I will try and write a book expounding it.
It's amazing (or ought to be) how people can't accept such a viewpoint or react to it with any maturity.
If we have to have a shit national anthem, I'd rather it were Agadoo.
That used to be the theme of a strip in 2000AD. Can't remember which one.
I'm not having a dig but I think what you find "amazing" Justin, is that anyone could disagree with that argument and be left wing.
nugget casino sparks nugget casino sparks nugget casino sparks // caesars palace hotel casino caesars palace hotel casino caesars palace hotel casino
Commenting by HaloScan
