Martin O'Neill and Roy Keane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Anyway, back on-topic; Ray Houghton expresses his thoughts on his two-hour long meeting with Roy: http://thescore.thejournal.ie/ray-ho...62209-Nov2013/



I understand the RTÉ panel discussed the new appointments after last night's Champions League game. Don't suppose there's a video of the coverage about?

---

Giles spoke about what the role of an assistant manager was under Matt Busby and Brian Clough (i.e. over 40 years ago). He then agreed with Dunphy. Dunphy agreed with Giles and had a complete volte face from his initial position and thought both were great appointments. Brady liked the appointment of O'Neill, wasn't enthusiastic at all about Keane and wondered what he would bring to the job and reminded Dunphy that he had sung similar praises about Trappatoni when he was appointed. Bill laughed.

All I could think of was when Giles said about Keane having been out of the game for two years and having learned from his mistakes:

Attachment 1967

the panel discussion is online here: http://www.rte.ie/sport/player/813/485196/

Can anyone explain why Alex Bruce's pic is on the link for the squad announcement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Of course it can mean different things to different people. Just like, say, the Union flag, or even the Irish flag, symbolises different things to different people. You don't dispute that, surely? Even the swastika, one of the most unambiguously loathed and stigmatised symbols in Western civilisation, possesses various connotations dependent on one's perspectives and circumstances. It's widely viewed as a symbol of good luck in southern Asia, for example.

---

The Indians and South Asians do not consider the Swatzika in the same form as hitler had it, its been found on ancient scribes and drawings, but it has no context in the same form.

Similarly you cannot compare the Irish flag which is such a divisive thing on the Island of Ireland, with a large number of people, to some symbol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

The Indians and South Asians do not consider the Swatzika in the same form as hitler had it, its been found on ancient scribes and drawings, but it has no context in the same form.

Similarly you cannot compare the Irish flag which is such a divisive thing on the Island of Ireland, with a large number of people, to some symbol.

---

in the same vein Lazio fans wave Celtic crosses as a fascist symbol

In the context of the cross, and the amount of Catholics the world over, i doubt at most a few thousand Lazio fans can be called a sizeable divisive number.

Widespread neo-Nazi and white-pride group use of the Celtic cross is well-known. It's one of their most popular symbols. In fact, its depiction can be prohibited within certain contexts in both Germany and Italy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_...Neo_Nazi_Usage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In Germany, the Celtic cross was adopted by a prohibited political party (VSBD/PdA) leading to a ban of the symbol if used within a racist context (cf. Strafgesetzbuch section 86a). Although there were doubts on the constitutionality of the ban it was upheld in a decision of the supreme court.

In Italy there is a similar ban, deriving from Legge Mancino (Mancino Act, from the Minister of Interior who enacted the law), although there are some examples of the use of the Celtic Cross as a Roman Catholic Church symbol in Northern Italy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

The Indians and South Asians do not consider the Swatzika in the same form as hitler had it, its been found on ancient scribes and drawings, but it has no context in the same form.

---

That was my point. Was it not you arguing that what you called a "black-and-white" symbol could only possess one meaning or connotation? And, of course there is a cross-over of context, even if Nazi theory was rather spurious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastik...mbol_of_Nazism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The use of the swastika was incorporated by Nazi theorists with their conjecture of Aryan cultural descent of the German people. Following the Nordicist version of the Aryan invasion theory, the Nazis claimed that the early Aryans of India, from whose Vedic tradition the swastika sprang, were the prototypical white invaders. The concept of racial purity was an ideology central to Nazism, though it is now considered unscientific. For Alfred Rosenberg, the Aryans of India were both a model to be imitated and a warning of the dangers of the spiritual and racial "confusion" that, he believed, arose from the close proximity of races. Thus, they saw fit to co-opt the sign as a symbol of the Aryan master race. The use of the swastika as a symbol of the Aryan race dates back to writings of Emile Burnouf. Following many other writers, the German nationalist poet Guido von List believed it to be a uniquely Aryan symbol.

---

Quote:

---

Similarly you cannot compare the Irish flag which is such a divisive thing on the Island of Ireland, with a large number of people, to some symbol.

---

Why not? The Irish flag is a symbol, after all.

Meanwhile...

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...ps3ed07315.png

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/c...s7120aaae.jpeg

Football and politics, there; mixing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

In the context of the cross, and the amount of Catholics the world over, I doubt at most a few thousand Lazio fans can be called a sizeable divisive number.

---

The context for Tet's reply is that celtic crosses are part of a symbolism of a culture dating back thousands of years, however, in recent history it has become a symbol used by fascist groups. In a similar vein, the swastika has been an important symbolic part of Eastern spiritual culture for thousands of years and in recent history has been used (in a modified form) by fascist groups.

I'm not sure where the confusion is, or why there is confusion more importantly.

The poppy, might be for some people a symbol of getting high, for a small minority. It doesn't really matter.

However my point is about the poppy a symbol of peace originally supposedly, not some ancient bloody meaning, its worn in the UK as a symbol of support to their Forces. It has no connotation or some link to anything else in the UK by a significant number of people to mean anything else, its pure and simple a symbol of support to the Armed Forces. Whether or not its meaning is peace or what not is irrelevant really, the symbol is a show of support to the British Armed Forces.

*Off topic - DI stop quoting, wikipedia for gods sake. I really don't like people who textbook learn, live the world, learn from people immersed in that culture. I'm pretty sure if you ask the average(educated Indian for example or Pakistani or Bangladeshi on the street about that symbol it will not pop into their head anything you throw up from wiki like above, it will relate to the WWII Nazis.

Only Skstu tried to get high on the poppy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori...

The poppy obviously means different things to different people. For some, it might represent the memory of a lost loved one. For others, a jingoistic celebration of (what once was) British global might. For others again, a symbol of the foreign oppressor. And so forth...

The Royal British Legion, who run Poppyfest annually, declare their purpose as being to "provide help and welfare to the serving and ex-Service community and their families". Of course, soldiers are cannon-fodder. When were they ever fighting for an agenda of their own? Whilst there may be a charitable element (and who, other than a downright misanthropic sociopath, could argue with the concept of charity, after all?!), the poppy possesses a double meaning; it is also a useful propaganda tool for those of the establishment who send lower-class men out to do their dirty work. To question the exhibition of the poppy and the wars in which these soldiers are sent off to fight can then become disingenuously twisted or framed as an attack on "our boys". To cast a critical eye over these poor sods out "fighting for our freedom" is simply below-the-belt; unthinkable as far as the terms of the public debate on the matter are concerned. The poppy provides a rosy buffer or smokescreen for those elites who stand to benefit from global warmongering.

This semi-related documentary - it's a critique of US warmongering and propaganda - by Eugene Jarecki on the rise and maintenance of the American military-industrial complex, Why We Fight, is worth a watch for anyone interested in such things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7-GBRx1xM

---

Well as I see it if they fought for a better world they would not have to beg for hand outs, and I do mean that,
I mean we have food banks here in the UK with people being left destitute all to refill empty bank accounts of the super rich.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I'm not sure where the confusion is, or why there is confusion more importantly.

The poppy, might be for some people a symbol of getting high, for a small minority. It doesn't really matter.

However my point is about the poppy a symbol of peace originally supposedly, not some ancient bloody meaning, its worn in the UK as a symbol of support to their Forces. It has no connotation or some link to anything else in the UK by a significant number of people to mean anything else, its pure and simple a symbol of support to the Armed Forces. Whether or not its meaning is peace or what not is irrelevant really, the symbol is a show of support to the British Armed Forces.

---

But what does "support" for the British Armed Forces even mean exactly? Even that can mean different things to different people. Does it mean support for their troops? Their memories? Their sacrifices? Their past wars? Their current wars? Their imperial pursuits? Their slaughters?... I'm not sure how whether or not its meaning is "peace or whatnot" is irrelevant. How could it not be? Isn't that the crux of the contention? For some it may represent hope for peace; for others, it represents thirst for war. For you, it represents support for the British Armed Forces, whatever that might entail. Just because you have that opinion, doesn't make it true for everyone.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't wear one myself due to its negative connotations with regard to Ireland and Irish history. Stutts, for example, obviously feels it possesses different connotations to how I might view it. That's his prerogative as a free-thinking individual. I highly doubt he sports one to celebrate imperial warmongering, whilst that is part of the reason I wouldn't wear one; because my circumstances have resulted in me viewing it differently. Perhaps one aspect of his wearing of it is in memory of Irish lives lost during the World Wars rather than it amounting to some explicit support for the British Armed Forces.

Quote:

---

*Off topic - DI stop quoting, wikipedia for gods sake. I really don't like people who textbook learn, live the world, learn from people immersed in that culture. I'm pretty sure if you ask the average(educated Indian for example or Pakistani or Bangladeshi on the street about that symbol it will not pop into their head anything you throw up from wiki like above, it will relate to the WWII Nazis.

---

Apologies, I'll head out with my dictaphone next time. I was merely providing some basic context and background. Wiki's a pretty handy tool for info-searching when it's difficult to find such perspectives in the flesh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited, multilingual, free Internet encyclopedia supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.

---

:p

Of course your average south Asian immersed in Western culture will be more than aware of the Nazi connotations of the swastika and may well dismiss the conjectured association of the symbol by Nazi theorists with their part of the world as nothing more than crude b*stardisation. I've never been immersed in non-Western south Asian culture, so it would be hasty to assume what the thoughts of those from that culture might be, but they may well have feelings on what would be swastika's "true" symbolism. The swastika is used contemporarily in Asia, after all.

I'm not sure what exactly your point is though. Symbols can mean different things to different people, is all I'm arguing. Some will see "true" meanings where others see "twisted" meanings; it's all just a matter of one's perspective. Are we not in general agreement on that (with the exception of the poppy and its alleged unambiguous meaning by yourself)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Well as I see it if they fought for a better world they would not have to beg for hand outs, and I do mean that

---

Well, of course, which just signifies the great myth under which they're sent off to fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

*Off topic - DI stop quoting, wikipedia for gods sake. I really don't like people who textbook learn, live the world, learn from people immersed in that culture. I'm pretty sure if you ask the average(educated Indian for example or Pakistani or Bangladeshi on the street about that symbol it will not pop into their head anything you throw up from wiki like above, it will relate to the WWII Nazis.

---

I'm the opposite, I'd much prefer someone back up their argument with citations and evidence, not just anecdotes and opinions with no weight behind them.

My evidence is my experience in life, more so than not. I live life as a realist rather than what ifs or what I've read. And generally it has done me well. But if you think reading books is the only way to learn, good luck to you, each to their own. It's kinda the Sarah Palin way of learning geography read some books on culture and customs and think you understand the whole world.

Btw, isnt it the white poppy and not the red one which is the peace symbol anyway? Which completely nullifies the argument that it has many meanings for many different people(s).

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what exactly your point is though. Symbols can mean different things to different people, is all I'm arguing. Some will see "true" meanings where others see "twisted" meanings; it's all just a matter of one's perspective. Are we not in general agreement on that (with the exception of the poppy and its alleged unambiguous meaning by yourself)?

---

The discussion stemmed(good one o hai?) out of something of symbolism related to the red poppy worn in the UK - which coincidentally factually is incorrect I think - and how it could symbolize different things to sizeable numbers of different people. I think we have proven it doesn't, it symbolises the same thing, but its interpretation or how it emotionally attaches to certain people is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

But if you think reading books is the only way to learn, good luck to you, each to their own. It's kinda the Sarah Palin way of learning geography read some books on culture and customs and think you understand the whole world.

---

That's not what Peadar was saying at all.

Quote:

---

Btw, isnt it the white poppy and not the red one which is the peace symbol anyway? Which completely nullifies the argument that it has many meanings for many different people(s).

---

No, it doesn't. I've outlined numerous different meanings or connotations it can have for different people.

Quote:

---

I think we have proven it doesn't, it symbolises the same thing, but its interpretation or how it emotionally attaches to certain people is different.

---

What "same thing" does it symbolise for everyone? You've failed to elaborate. Its possible or alleged symbolism is wholly derived from its subjective interpretation by whoever is doing the interpretation. I mean, some people might even claim it's not political but humanitarian rather.

Paul, you're just rambling nonsense now.

My point was that symbols have different meanings to different people. Some symbols have very fixed meanings - like the Roman salute, the Nazi swastika - while others are far more open to interpretation, like the poppy which can be as innocent as "keep our boys safe" or as malignant as "kill those paddy facks". I'm not sure why you're so resistant to this basic concept and even more baffled by your resort to "life experience" to deflect from the fact you've talked yourself way into an argument you haven't really thought through.

No, because i live here, and i know what it symbolises, and that relates to my last point, you live in Ireland CD and read about it and what not, but don't really understand or have a clue yet you felt you could empathise with someone living in a country who wears it for whatever reasons, which we still dont know. Your point was nothing to do with symbols but understanding why someone living in a country would wear a poppy, thats how this all started!

My point hasnt changed CD, there may have been other offshoots, but its relative to what you posted originally. How is it completely understandable for someone to wear a poppy just because they live in the country where it's sold to support that countries armed forces, you never answered, just jumped back on an advanced original discussion now.

DI, if you took 10 people and showed them a picture, that picture might mean 7 different things for 7 people, and the same for 3. It means absoloutely nothing.

What Peadar was trying to say was that because I'm not backing up with wiki he wouldn't take any heed of my point. Thats his opinion and Im not too bothered about it, however he paints around it.

I'm also open to the point that I answer different posts at different times, not necessarily succintly either, because i dont have time to sit back and check over and formulate posts. I reply quickly so its probably a bit more confusing. I don't have time like you CD to quote on quote and all that crap :P Maybe to you becasue you cant understand it it comes across as nonsense :)

Quote:

---

No, because i live here, and i know what it symbolises

---

No, you live in England and you know what it symbolises to English people, although even so not everybody agrees. You're very correct that I live in a different country where the symbol has different connotations.

Quote:

---

How is it completely understandable for someone to wear a poppy just because they live in the country where it's sold to support that countries armed forces

---

I said it's understandable that he doesn't see a reason not to wear a poppy. He didn't really elaborate on the "I live in England, etc" and I didn't push it, I just assumed he had his own reasons that were more nuanced than what he posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

For what it's worth, I wouldn't wear one myself due to its negative connotations with regard to Ireland and Irish history. Stutts, for example, obviously feels it possesses different connotations to how I might view it. That's his prerogative as a free-thinking individual. I highly doubt he sports one to celebrate imperial warmongering, whilst that is part of the reason I wouldn't wear one; because my circumstances have resulted in me viewing it differently. Perhaps one aspect of his wearing of it is in memory of Irish lives lost during the World Wars rather than it amounting to some explicit support for the British Armed Forces.

---

Thanks Danny.

I'm here 14 years now. I started wearing one about 5 years ago. I felt it was more of a churlish statement not to wear one than it is a positive statement to wear one. If I lived in Ireland I probably wouldn't wear one. If I did I'd be making a strong message whereas here I think I'm simply making a passive gesture. (by here I mean London, not foot.ie!)

Most people wear them here without really over-thinking any of the potential political dimensions. Some UKIP heads and Tory nutjobs probably see it in a more malign sense.

The vast majority of people here that wear a poppy just see that historically British and other soldiers made great sacrifices to fend off totalitarianism or other badness. Of course, that's the nice explanation - WW1 was more about a land grab or a grab for influence and power when fault lines were fracturing in Europe and it was in the UK's interests to side with their allies. That doesn't matter though - kids were sent to a brutal death.

And of course many here were fed a diet of propaganda during The Troubles too. But still, at WW1 there was a tragic loss of young lives in a way that thank God none of our children will ever have to go through. Part of wearing a poppy is remembering that. I would say that my UK friends almost to a man - in fact including a soldier who served in NI - would agree that at Bloody Sunday and throughout the Troubles the army and their State acted terribly. But in light of the terror of the WW1 trenches and that so many kids are/were returning home from Afghanistan in boxes or missing limbs, whatever I feel about what happened in Ireland isn't enough for me not to show a little respect in the country I live in. If I lived in New York I wouldn't not take part in a passive mark of respect to those who died in the Twin Towers because of what the US did in Central and South America - which I happen to feel very strongly about.

The world is a messed up place. I can't think of any former colonist that hasn't got a dark past.

I think poppy wearing can be a little like football: generally pretty benign but gets hijacked for political expediency by some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

My evidence is my experience in life, more so than not. I live life as a realist rather than what ifs or what I've read. And generally it has done me well. But if you think reading books is the only way to learn, good luck to you, each to their own. It's kinda the Sarah Palin way of learning geography read some books on culture and customs and think you understand the whole world.

---

That's patently ridiculous, you're assuming that your interpretation of those experiences is correct, so anyone with a different viewpoint on the same experiences is wrong by default. The vast majority of learning is done through reading. Are you saying all of this is wrong, because the person involved didn't actively experience the Renaissance/American Revolution/World War II?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

No, because i live here, and i know what it symbolises, and that relates to my last point, you live in Ireland CD and read about it and what not, but don't really understand or have a clue yet you felt you could empathise with someone living in a country who wears it for whatever reasons, which we still dont know. Your point was nothing to do with symbols but understanding why someone living in a country would wear a poppy, thats how this all started!

---

I live in England too, but what does that matter? I've seen all types of different people wearing poppies of late. Likewise, I've seen all types of different people not wearing poppies. There are a whole myriad of reasons as to why or why not, I'm sure. Aren't you the one, and not Charlie, jumping to judgment and conclusions? You think you know why everyone is wearing a poppy. Just because you might live near or amongst some wearers, and possibly may have spoken with some others, it doesn't give you any greater right to assume or insight into all wearers' motives.

Quote:

---

How is it completely understandable for someone to wear a poppy just because they live in the country where it's sold to support that countries armed forces

---

Because it may have another meaning for that someone.

Quote:

---

DI, if you took 10 people and showed them a picture, that picture might mean 7 different things for 7 people, and the same for 3. It means absoloutely nothing.

---

It means that a symbol can mean different things to different people, no?

Quote:

---

What Peadar was trying to say was that because I'm not backing up with wiki he wouldn't take any heed of my point.

---

That's not quite what he said either.