James McClean M Wrexham b.1989

[Drumcondra 69er]

I was thinking exact same thing re-Swindon. I suppose the difference is that at Swindon he didn't cause a (supposedly) left-wing MP living in a Primrose Hill mansion to stand down from a handsomely paid junket, sorry, non-exec deputy chairmanship.

Plus the fact is that, regardless of what they'd have you believe, Sky and a decent portion of the UK media don't give a **** about the football league so it only became a story once he came into the premier.

[tetsujin1979]

when he took over at Swindon, the GMB trade union removed their sponsorship of the team: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...io-sponsor-gmb

[SwanVsDalton]

Di Canio had a pretty major falling out with Trapattoni when at Juventus didn't he? Wonder what kind of word he'd have in McClean's ear if things got shifty between James and Trap again.

[ifk101]

We'll have to see how long Trapattoni and Di Canio stay in their respective positions.

[Bungle]

I think that Di Canio is great for the premiership - he's entertaining, he's charismatic and he encourages proper football. Makes a nice change from the usual run of the mill cliched manager in English football. I'm sure Paolo will get the local buses running on time

It really bugs me listening to the Sunderland fans who are acting all self-righteous. Would they kick up such a big fuss if Di Canio said he was a Communist - undoubtebly no. Were Mao or Stalin any better as human beings than Mussolini? I'd leave that to people who know history but from my own limited knowledge of history, they were arguably worse. English football seems to be full of gob****es who see themselves as some kind of moral police for all that is right and good in the game and are quick to judge everyone else - Rio Ferdinand seems to be the main one.

Anyhow, rant over!! I like our James and he think he can be very good for us and can make a good career in the Premiership. He is so predictable, but I think that he is a handful for pretty much most defenders, bar the very best, with his physicality and his pace. He's quite good from set pieces as well. Not sure if he's a Di Canio type player though but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[DannyInvincible]

It really bugs me listening to the Sunderland fans who are acting all self-righteous. Would they kick up such a big fuss if Di Canio said he was a Communist - undoubtebly no. Were Mao or Stalin any better as human beings than Mussolini? I'd leave that to people who know history but from my own limited knowledge of history, they were arguably worse. English football seems to be full of gob****es who see themselves as some kind of moral police for all that is right and good in the game and are quick to judge everyone else - Rio Ferdinand seems to be the main one.

It is interesting to observe how one particular morally dubious ideology stokes so many flames and bears the brunt of so much public and media rebuke when there are plenty other contemporary thought systems that could be perceived as just as damaging and perhaps as more socially pressing or relevant than fascism. Trapattoni is a member of Opus Dei, for example, but we don't try and apportion blame upon him for the grand crimes of the Catholic Church, not just in Ireland but throughout history.

I can only speculate as I have no significant understanding of Italian society, but our Anglophone conception of fascism, which, whether rightly or wrongly, we view as intrinsically tied to Nazi ideology - Hitler being the ultimate bogeyman of our over-riding political perspective, of course - and is coloured by the historical British-American World War II victors' narrative, is quite possibly somewhat different to how Italians like Di Canio might conceive it. We broadly view fascism as inherently bad and morally unsavoury, but perhaps significant numbers of Italians see it as a more benign, as relatively commonplace or not so alien and as a potential source for good with a certain integrity to it, like how many people in Ireland might view the Catholic Church, despite its faults.

If someone claims to be a fascist - perhaps even in admiration of its less objectionable "positive" or "good" aspects - there'd be plenty rushing to lump all the associated violent and racist baggage (Hitler, the Holocaust, et cetera) on top of them. If someone claims to be a communist, however, we jump to no such presumptions; we don't generally tend to hold said declared communist accountable for the crimes of Mao or Stalin and give them the theoretical benefit of any doubt we might have in the practicalities of their ideology of choice.

Perhaps I'm way off the mark and it is indeed fascism's nature, both theoretical and practical, that is rightly offensive to most people, whereas you might have, say, a well-meaning communist in spite of the past crimes of systematic communism or governments purporting to be communist, as such crimes can be portrayed within the frame of amounting to b*stardisations or unfortunate and unintended consequences of Marx's writings. Fascism in theory and fascism in practice, you might say, are one and the same; what it was and is in practice was or is the wholehearted intention of its theorists. To be honest, I would need a better understanding of Italian society and its perceptions of fascism - what the word connotes there exactly - to reach a more conclusive judgment, but it's interesting to think about in the sense of differing cultural perspectives.

Anyhow, Di Canio is pretty adamant he doesn't sympathise with racist ideology and I'm sure he was recently quoted as having denied he ever said he was a fascist in the first place, claiming that he was misquoted whilst at Lazio (I think).

[Charlie Darwin]

It really bugs me listening to the Sunderland fans who are acting all self-righteous. Would they kick up such a big fuss if Di Canio said he was a Communist - undoubtebly no. Were Mao or Stalin any better as human beings than Mussolini?

I hope you're not equating fascism with communism. Communism might be a silly ideology but it contains no overtones of racial superiority, which is what Di Canio is being accused of.

It is interesting to observe how one particular morally dubious ideology stokes so many flames and bears the brunt of so much rebuke when there are plenty other contemporary thought systems that could be perceived as just as damaging and perhaps as more socially pressing or relevant. Trapattoni is a member of Opus Dei, for example, but we don't try and apportion blame upon him for the grand crimes of the Catholic Church, not just in Ireland but throughout history.

Well nobody is accusing Di Canio of being responsible for the holocaust. They're accusing him of backing an ideology that explicitly called for and enabled it.

I can only speculate as I have no significant understanding of Italian society, but our Anglophone conception of fascism, which, whether rightly or wrongly, we view as intrinsically tied to Nazi ideology - Hitler being the ultimate bogeyman of our over-riding political perspective, of course - and is coloured by the historical British-American World War II victors' narrative, is quite possibly somewhat different to how Italians like Di Canio might conceive it. We broadly view fascism as inherently bad and morally unsavoury, but perhaps significant numbers of Italians see it as a more benign, as relatively commonplace or not so alien and as a potential source for good with a certain integrity to it, like how many people in Ireland might view the Catholic Church.

This is a bit silly. There is no equating fascism with the Catholic Church, and I am the first to admit the Catholic Church is a disgusting organisation. Di Canio isn't being condemned for the people he associates with, he's being condemned for the views he has actively expressed in public.

[ArdeeBhoy]

You're wrong on this one, I think, Danny.

Put down a few links later....

Fill yer boots?

Check the comments rather than the article?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21990117

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/socc...source=dlvr.it

http://balls.ie/football/paolo-di-ca...-a-racist-gif/

http://www.farenet.org/default.asp?i...ArticleID=2971

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/b...nio-sunderland

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...f-fascism.html

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...6425007&type=1

p.274
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=F...ything&f=false


From Wiki.
Di Canio is a self-proclaimed Fascist. In 2005, he characterised his political views by declaring that he was "a fascist, not a racist".[28]

His use of the Roman salute toward Lazio supporters, a gesture adopted by Italian fascists in the 20th century, has created controversy. Documented uses of the salute include in matches against arch-rivals A.S. Roma and A.S. Livorno Calcio, a club inclined to left-wing politics.[29] Di Canio received a one-match ban after the second event and was fined €7,000.[30] He was later quoted as saying: "I will always salute as I did because it gives me a sense of belonging to my people ... I saluted my people with what for me is a sign of belonging to a group that holds true values, values of civility against the standardisation that this society imposes upon us."[31] His salute has been featured on unofficial merchandise sold outside Stadio Olimpico after the ban.[29]

He has also expressed admiration for the fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In his autobiography, he praised Mussolini as "basically a very principled, ethical individual" who was "deeply misunderstood"

[DannyInvincible]

Well nobody is accusing Di Canio of being responsible for the holocaust. They're accusing him of backing an ideology that explicitly called for and enabled it.

That's the thing though; our modern understanding of what fascism is can mean anything and everything. Orwell's writings on the matter are worth a read: http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As.../english/efasc

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

"Fascist" has become a pejorative or a taboo word in Anglophone thought post-World War II, and now when we learn that someone has actually self-identified as one (although Di Canio may have later denied such an identification), it naturally stirs a hoo-ha due to our preconceptions of how we assume Di Canio to be defining himself. We are basing our presumptions on our own socio-cultural conditioning rather than anything we know of Di Canio's. We don't really have any idea what Di Canio's actual political beliefs are because he's never gone into any great level of detail about them. We're basing our entire understanding of his political character on a word that is by no means unambiguous. And did Italian fascism actually call for and enable the Nazi Holocaust?

This is a bit silly. There is no equating fascism with the Catholic Church, and I am the first to admit the Catholic Church is a disgusting organisation.

Really? The Catholic Church is guilty of some exceptional crimes throughout history. Countless genocides have been carried out in its name/to spread the "Word of God" and it has stunted numerous societies around the globe with its mind-shrinking dogma. It's even unashamedly sexist. In fact, it happily supported fascism in Italy; Catholicism was the mutually-agreed state religion by virtue of a concordat. Yet we tolerate its existence in Ireland with passivity because we're perhaps used to its presence, maybe see it as a normal presence and obviously don't have the same view of it as its victims and their sympathisers might. The observation of Irish passivity isn't a call to arms or anything either; just saying! So why is it unfair to mention its name in the same sentence as "fascism" exactly?

[paul_oshea]

Most wars throughout the ages have been religious wars or indirectly related to religion.

Danny you need to start channelling your thoughts and opinions properly, either in a job you are happy with, not necessarily law, or to the relevant organisations.

James McClean would love to know he sparked a fascism compared with/within the catholic church, discuss debate - I know its not about fascism within the catholic church.

[Pauro 76]

Is Paolo Di Canio a dedicated follower of fascism?

[punkrocket]

You really got me with that one Pauro.

[DannyInvincible]

Danny you need to start channelling your thoughts and opinions properly, either in a job you are happy with, not necessarily law, or to the relevant organisations.

Procrastination and waiting around for work later are a toxic mix!

[Bungle]

My point is that Facism has produced some of the world's greatest scumbags, but then again so as Communism. Communism could never work because of the faults of human beings, but it is a lovely ideology. Men like Mao and Stalin were communists in name but certainly didn't practice what they preach, but then again you could argue if you were using the same viewpoint that all the scumbag priests and bishops in the Catholic Church were only Catholic in name and the real Christianity is displayed by the likes of Brother Kevin in Smithfield or the monks in Merchant's Quay etc or by many religious people around the country. Some of the nicest people I have met are very religious, but then again so are some of the very worst and most judgemental people. There are some atheists I know that are truly among the soundest fellas you could meet.

The thing is that ideology and religion is seperate to football and should always be. It shouldn't be important whether Paolo respects Mussolini, but whether the man can manage. I do think that there is often double standards at play with people - if say Sunderland were getting Fabio Capello as their new manager and he held strong opinions, I doubt there would be such an uproar as when them getting a relatively inexperienced manager (I actually think Di Canio could be class).

[Charlie Darwin]

"Fascist" has become a pejorative or a taboo word in Anglophone thought post-World War II, and now when we learn that someone has actually self-identified as one (although Di Canio may have later denied such an identification), it naturally stirs a hoo-ha due to our preconceptions of how we assume Di Canio to be defining himself. We are basing our presumptions on our own socio-cultural conditioning rather than anything we know of Di Canio's. We don't really have any idea what Di Canio's actual political beliefs are because he's never gone into any great level of detail about them. We're basing our entire understanding of his political character on a word that is by no means unambiguous. And did Italian fascism actually call for and enable the Nazi Holocaust?

You're getting caught up in sociology where it's not warranted. Di Canio has been pretty clear about what he admires in fascism, which is its bull**** adherence to the virtues of order and discipline, but his decision to start flashing fascist salutes in public is another matter entirely and he can't just cower in the corner and hope it goes away as he is currently doing.

Really? The Catholic Church is guilty of some exceptional crimes throughout history. Countless genocides have been carried out in its name/to spread the "Word of God" and it has stunted numerous societies around the globe with its mind-shrinking dogma. It's even unashamedly sexist. In fact, it happily supported fascism in Italy; Catholicism was the mutually-agreed state religion by virtue of a concordat. Yet we tolerate its existence in Ireland with passivity because we're perhaps used to its presence, maybe see it as a normal presence and obviously don't have the same view of it as its victims and their sympathisers might. The observation of Irish passivity isn't a call to arms or anything either; just saying! So why is it unfair to mention its name in the same sentence as "fascism" exactly?

I'm not sticking up for the Catholic Church. I am not a Catholic and would gladly see it burned to the ground. But being a Catholic does not entail an acceptance or approval of the awful actions of the church, whereas endorsing fascism is more or less an admission that you're a racial purist.

My point is that Facism has produced some of the world's greatest scumbags, but then again so as Communism. Communism could never work because of the faults of human beings, but it is a lovely ideology.

Exactly. Communism is a lovely, misguided ideology. Fascism is a disgusting, misguided ideology. It says an awful lot about the people who choose to support it.

The thing is that ideology and religion is seperate to football and should always be. It shouldn't be important whether Paolo respects Mussolini, but whether the man can manage. I do think that there is often double standards at play with people - if say Sunderland were getting Fabio Capello as their new manager and he held strong opinions, I doubt there would be such an uproar as when them getting a relatively inexperienced manager (I actually think Di Canio could be class).

I would broadly agree with you but I think people shouldn't express viewpoints unless they are prepared to stand behind them. Di Canio has expressed fascist viewpoints and now he's rolling back on them because he doesn't like being asked difficult questions. It has no bearing on his ability to manage a football team but it is still a poor reflection on him as a person.

[paul_oshea]

This is a bit silly. There is no equating fascism with the Catholic Church, and I am the first to admit the Catholic Church is a disgusting organisation.

I knew you weren't a follower CD or any interest in it, therefore you don't have to admit anything. Stop trying to be inclusive.

[Charlie Darwin]

I knew you weren't a follower CD or any interest in it, therefore you don't have to admit anything. Stop trying to be inclusive.

What do you mean? I have no time for the Catholic church, but I think expressing fascist ideology brings its own connotations that believing in a god doesn't.

[paul_oshea]

Why did you use the word admit? You aren't involved in it, you don't work for it, you don't defend it, so why use the word admit?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/s...678192,00.html

[Stuttgart88]

Di Canio has "Dux" tattooed on his arm, in honour of Mussolini.

I know little about it, but I think Danny is largely right. To the best of my understanding Italian fascism was more based on socialist principles of equality and national ownership of key industries, all overseen by a strong powerful leader but lacking democratic accountability.

Anyone who has seen the price-gouging by privatised utilities here in the UK, the hollowing out of the UK economy by outsourcing labour to the far east, the dramatic rise in UK inequality, the short-termism and just sheer intertia that can be caused by the liberal democracy we all hold so dear, not to mention the police state the recent media enquiry uncovered and also the expense-fiddling might just feel a modicum of sympathy with the above principles. I'm sure the cleric who wrote an open letter to Di Canio probably agrees with my assessment of the UK's flaws!

I think it's OK to agree with the above and not be automatically associated with genocide and racism. Maybe I've totally misunderstood what Italian fascism was about though, but I'd hazard a guess that it was as much an economic aspiration as any form of racism or worse, or rather that it's possible to be ideologically aligned with one aspect of Italian fascism and not the other parts. The economic crises of the early 30s gave rise to violent conflict between two opposing ideologies both as yet untested. Morally I'm far more aligned with the left but I'm not sure any of the models we've tried have been a resounding success - though I have strong sympathy with the Scandy social democratic ideals and am becoming increasingly interested in leraning more about German ordoliberalism.

[Charlie Darwin]

Why did you use the word admit? You aren't involved in it, you don't work for it, you don't defend it, so why use the word admit?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/s...678192,00.html

Because I'm a big silly.

Di Canio has "Dux" tattooed on his arm, in honour of Mussolini.

I know little about it, but I think Danny is largely right. To the best of my understanding Italian fascism was more based on socialist principles of equality and national ownership of key industries, all overseen by a strong powerful leader but lacking democratic accountability.

Italian fascism was based less on racial purity than Nazism, yes, and the Italian fascists had to modify their antisemitic platform as it wasn't popular among the masses. Small consolation to the thousands of Jews who were exported to death camps, mind you.

Anyone who has seen the price-gouging by privatised utilities here in the UK, the hollowing out of the UK economy by outsourcing labour to the far east, the dramatic rise in UK inequality, the short-termism and just sheer intertia that can be caused by the liberal democracy we all hold so dear, not to mention the police state the recent media enquiry uncovered and also the expense-fiddling might just feel a modicum of sympathy with the above principles. I'm sure the cleric who wrote an open letter to Di Canio probably agrees with my assessment of the UK's flaws!

You think people who are opposed to the supposed police state in the UK will be attracted to fascism? You're being ridiculously generous. I have no doubt that Di Canio is just a moron with a hard-on for authority, but you can't just whitewash the racist element of fascism to suit an argument.

I think it's OK to agree with the above and not be automatically associated with genocide and racism. Maybe I've totally misunderstood what Italian fascism was about though, but I'd hazard a guess that it was as much an economic aspiration as any form of racism or worse, or rather that it's possible to be ideologically aligned with one aspect of Italian fascism and not the other parts. The economic crises of the early 30s gave rise to violent conflict between two opposing ideologies both as yet untested. Morally I'm far more aligned with the left but I'm not sure any of the models we've tried have been a resounding success - though I have strong sympathy with the Scandy social democratic ideals and am becoming increasingly interested in leraning more about German ordoliberalism.

Well fascism is a lefty ideology, economically at least. And no, I wouldn't associate everybody who has fascist leanings with genocide and racism, but I wouldn't be so forgiving as to assume they endorse it with total ignorance of the fact it has, historically, been an ideology bent on wiping out unfavourable ethnic groups.