comment by Red Mamba _ Kop in Kenya _ User 1282 (U13041)
Also I've been polite to you too. I think its daft that you are defending the chants
---------------------------------
I haven't defended the chants so please don't say that I have. Numerous times I have said that they should not have been sung last weekend and also stated that I never take part in any anti-LFC chants.
I have merely questioned as to whether the one heard last weekend was a direct reference to Hillsborough. My impression was that the specific chant heard last weekend has never been about Hillsborough. I have heard other United fans say the same. Some LFC fans on here, including TOOR, have disagreed with that.
But either way, the chant should not have been heard last weekend in light of recent events regarding Hillsborough. Not should it be sung this coming weekend. I hope the game goes off without a hitch, and if something is planned to honour the 96, I hope that all United fans do the club proud.
The ‘victim menatiltiy’ stereotype originated in the late 80’s, when Thatcher and her party had a particular problem with the city of Liverpool, and took root particularly after Hillsborough. It was politically motivated, and iI’s been perpetuated iever since by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Whenever it was brought up, Hillsborough was referenced. It was the central plank of the accusation, the innuendo being that Liverpool fans caused the disaster. Part of the reason it was so easy to perpetuate it is because of the yobbish, tabloid mentailty of being only too happy to believe it, and only too happy to sing the tunes of political ‘masters’. Many will continute to believe it about Hillsborough in spite of this week’s findings, because it suits them to do so.
Predictably, it was also used in the Suarez/Evra affair, the implication being that Liverpool are not entitled to plead ‘Not Guilty’ to anything, since it provides more evidence of ‘victim mentality’. (Note: MORE evidence to feed a stereotype that already existed).
It was used by Boris over Ken Bigley’s plight, and explicity referenced back to Hillsborough. Because obviously somebody about to be beheaded in public is not in any sense a victim, so showing support for his family is politically incorrect. The fears expressed by Boris in his apology, about anti-war sympathies (when in fact nobody other than Bigley's brother had expressed any) were just incidental, and didn’t indicate any kind of agenda at all, oh no .
It is a stereotype that has been EXPLICITLY referenced back to Hisllsborough many times. To suggest that any chants sung this week refer only to the Suarez/Evra affair, and nothing else, in a week in which Hillsborough has dominated the headlines, is disingenuous, if not cynical, and nobody is going to believe it.
It’s like a kid saying to his teacher “I DID say ‘Look at the t!ts on that’, but I meant those blue t!ts on the tree. How can you possibly think I meant anything else?” <smirk>.
Suarez/ Evra.... The handshake
Page 15 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 18/9/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/9/12
comment by Red Mamba _ Kop in Kenya _ User 1282 (U13041)
Also I've been polite to you too. I think its daft that you are defending the chants
---------------------------------
I haven't defended the chants so please don't say that I have. Numerous times I have said that they should not have been sung last weekend and also stated that I never take part in any anti-LFC chants.
I have merely questioned as to whether the one heard last weekend was a direct reference to Hillsborough. My impression was that the specific chant heard last weekend has never been about Hillsborough. I have heard other United fans say the same. Some LFC fans on here, including TOOR, have disagreed with that.
But either way, the chant should not have been heard last weekend in light of recent events regarding Hillsborough. Not should it be sung this coming weekend. I hope the game goes off without a hitch, and if something is planned to honour the 96, I hope that all United fans do the club proud.
posted on 18/9/12
The ‘victim menatiltiy’ stereotype originated in the late 80’s, when Thatcher and her party had a particular problem with the city of Liverpool, and took root particularly after Hillsborough. It was politically motivated, and iI’s been perpetuated iever since by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Whenever it was brought up, Hillsborough was referenced. It was the central plank of the accusation, the innuendo being that Liverpool fans caused the disaster. Part of the reason it was so easy to perpetuate it is because of the yobbish, tabloid mentailty of being only too happy to believe it, and only too happy to sing the tunes of political ‘masters’. Many will continute to believe it about Hillsborough in spite of this week’s findings, because it suits them to do so.
Predictably, it was also used in the Suarez/Evra affair, the implication being that Liverpool are not entitled to plead ‘Not Guilty’ to anything, since it provides more evidence of ‘victim mentality’. (Note: MORE evidence to feed a stereotype that already existed).
It was used by Boris over Ken Bigley’s plight, and explicity referenced back to Hillsborough. Because obviously somebody about to be beheaded in public is not in any sense a victim, so showing support for his family is politically incorrect. The fears expressed by Boris in his apology, about anti-war sympathies (when in fact nobody other than Bigley's brother had expressed any) were just incidental, and didn’t indicate any kind of agenda at all, oh no .
It is a stereotype that has been EXPLICITLY referenced back to Hisllsborough many times. To suggest that any chants sung this week refer only to the Suarez/Evra affair, and nothing else, in a week in which Hillsborough has dominated the headlines, is disingenuous, if not cynical, and nobody is going to believe it.
It’s like a kid saying to his teacher “I DID say ‘Look at the t!ts on that’, but I meant those blue t!ts on the tree. How can you possibly think I meant anything else?” <smirk>.
Page 15 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15