Right To Reply #1

In a potentially vain attempt to bring a bit more gravitas to SWSL and counterbalance the usual pop culture fluff and flippant misanthropic commentary, I've decided to try out some sort of loose debate-style feature in which a few people get together (in virtual terms) to discuss a particular (preferably topical) issue and chew the fat. A single voice can easily become monotonous, so I’m hopeful that this will allow others to speak through the medium of SWSL in the same way that Guest Weeks have worked for other bloggers and help keep it fresh. Hopefully Right To Reply – for this is the pretentiously grandiose moniker with which the feature has been christened – might become regular(ish). All comments welcome, and if you’d like to become involved next time or if you have suggestions for possible topics then please let me know in the comments box.

The subject: Nationalism and football

The protagonists:
Ben – your host
Paul – fellow Newcastle fan and author of 1000 Shades Of Grey
Leon – aka Portsmouth-based DIY musician Qhixldekx
Jez – loves Watford FC, Stereolab and The Clash; hates Manic Street Preachers, Colin Montgomerie and Fish from Marillion

Ben: With the extraordinary success of UKIP in the European elections, and the groundswell of patriotic fervour which inevitably accompanied England’s progress in Euro 2004, English nationalism has been more visible – literally – of late than I can remember it ever having been in the past few years. There is a clear connection between international football and nationalistic pride, and a further less clear-cut connection to political opinion.

Paul: I think that there is a connection between all sports and nationalism, because that is one of the main ways in which people can identify themselves, and identify with their culture. Whether it be football, cricket, rugby, athletics or even darts, I inevitably cheer on the Brits because they are representing my country, and indirectly representing me. The only reason why any identification between sport and nationalism might be dangerous is because of elements within society who attach themselves to that. You don't get trouble at the majority of sports in which Britain, or England competes, only really football, and that is not a result of nationalism, more a result of elements of society using sporting "support" as an outlet for their general nature.

Ben: Anyone claiming that this recent burst of nationalistic pride is wholly positive and healthy must surely have been shaken out of their complacency by the attack on the Portuguese pub in Thetford by a mob of drunk and enraged England fans following the Euro 2004 quarter-final defeat.* But, playing devil’s advocate for a moment, isn’t football at all levels (international and intranational) inherently racist in the sense that opposition fans belong to different "races" and discriminate against one another purely on the colour of their shirt and allegiance? I take pride in being a Newcastle fan (most of the time…), but I’m also guilty of making disparaging remarks about people when I know nothing more about them than the fact that they’re evidently Sunderland or Man Utd fans.

Paul: Football as a whole is more tribal than national, with most supporters choosing club over country anyway, but there is certainly an element of “My tribe’s better than your tribe, because we can shout louder, play better football, or (sadly) are ‘harder’ than you”. I don't think football is inherently racist, but it is tribal, England games simply seeing a collection of tribes (Geordies, Scousers, Cockneys etc joining together). I think if you had a Europe v South America game, most Europeans would support the same side, but that wouldn't stop them booing Zidane the next time England played France. There's probably some sociological explanation for the need for tribalism, but I don't know what it is.

Ben: But it’s frightening how easily this tribal or nationalistic pride spills over into overtly xenophobic hatred and racist violence, as in Thetford.

Paul: I don't think nationalism and racism are inextricably linked. Nationalism is more about how great we are, whereas I see racism more about how rubbish someone else is. That said, it is easy to blur the lines, as people like the BNP continually prove.

Leon: The far right is winning because we can’t disassociate having a healthy national pride from xenophobia.

Ben: But then the question is: what would a “healthy national pride” be? What would it be founded on? For the most part I’m not proud of being English. The word “Englishness”, for me, brings to mind conservative values and arrogant assumptions of cultural (with a small ‘c’) superiority. Narrow island, narrow minds. What then would an England I was proud of be like? One in which cultural diversity was not only tolerated but actively celebrated. But then there would be no single distinguishable national identity, and so perhaps the notions of “national identity” and “Englishness” would be rendered redundant and meaningless, and simply dissolve away.

Leon: I want to be proud of my country but I’m not sure I could define what “being” English means let alone find something to boast about! In some respects I like not being able to quantify “Englishness”. England is so ethnically diverse that perhaps it is this that we should be celebrating – English culture is now the culture of acceptance and tolerance; it’s a culture of cultures. But then why can’t we have this and rejoice in an English identity that draws on our own customs and traditions? Since the 50s and the birth of the “teenager” England has slowly become steeped in Americana. I fear that England will become a pale imitation of a nation that is itself bland and without heritage. America is a frightening beast. It is so aggressive because it has no sense of self.

Ben: But surely right-wing neo-Conservative America does have a very firm sense of self and national identity, and tries to foist its values on other cultures at every opportunity (like its unquestioned values of “freedom” and “democracy” currently being pressed on Iraq)? And, much as I myself might deplore the cultural Americanisation of the world, isn’t this reaction – essentially analogous to the broadly left-wing opposition to globalisation and corporate Americanisation – rooted in exactly the same fears of the loss of “traditional English national culture” (whatever that is) routinely preyed upon by the BNP? How big a leap is it to go from resenting the impact of American cultural imperialism in England to resenting the literal “influx” (I use the Mail’s term advisedly) of asylum seekers from Eastern Europe and elsewhere into England? My guess is that, for lefties like myself, it’s uncomfortably small.

Leon: I accept that not everyone would want to preserve England’s heritage and can find little to be proud of. For example, the very heritage I crave is inextricably linked to the Monarchy. For all the arguments that the Monarchy brings more money into the country than they spend, I’m not comfortable with the concept of one family being treated so well above all others. I loathe our national anthem – it has no relevance to contemporary England and harks back to a shameful period in our history. I would never be caught singing it even though I like the unifying spirit that a national anthem can generate. But I accept you can’t “pick and choose” on this issue. I believe the health of our culture is intrinsically linked to our social and economic problems. With nothing to unify the classes, with one man having nothing in common with another, the gulf between us will only increase.

Ben: A sense of identity is vital to us all, and I can understand that people want something more than the sense of identity (and solidarity) they get within the context of relationships, the family and the workplace. But is it possible to have a unifying sense of national identity that doesn’t exclude some people or necessarily foster an “us and them” mentality on an international level? I’m not sure.

Leon: At the most basic level I’ve found it very disheartening when I’ve visited countries in Europe and there is a shameless celebration of the host culture. Exciting, but disheartening, because there is no such enthusiasm back in Blighty. The same seems to be true when you visit Scotland and Wales – no apology is made for overt patriotism. The English also have a tendency to refer to themselves as “British”. The Scottish and Welsh, in my experience, don’t.

Paul: In some ways I envy the Scots / Welsh / Irish for their approach to nationalism, because it seems far more acceptable in society for them to celebrate their nationality than it is for the English. That said, and speaking as someone married to a Welsh lass, I think there is an element of English hating in Celtic nationalism, so it's not exactly free from prejudice. What does annoy me is the number of people who are English but don't know when St George's Day is, but do know St Paddy’s Day is 17th March.

Ben: But that’s why I’ve found the last couple of months so fascinating. Suddenly the shameless celebration of English nationality seems to have become much more acceptable and enthusiastic, to such an extent that a wimpy liberal lefty like myself has come to feel increasingly uneasy. I can’t help feeling that this seachange should be understood in the light of the country’s general political swing to the right as evidenced by the UKIP election results. Of course England’s participation in Euro 2004 has been another major contributory factor, but long before the tournament even kicked off, St George’s Day itself seemed to be celebrated much more fervently than ever before in living memory. Ever since, St George’s Crosses have become ubiquitous – hanging from windows, fluttering from cars etc.

Paul: As someone who owns an England flag, I'm happy to say it makes me think of England, but in much the same way as the Cross makes me think of Jesus. The fact that people have taken both symbols and used them for their own devices always upsets and frustrates me.

Leon: The “unifying spirit” I believe is held in a national anthem is also evident in a country’s flag. Whereas the national anthem could be seen as a “call to arms” the flag can be seen as a badge of honour. And I’m not comfortable with lining up behind it because for me the image of the English flag has been commandeered by the far right. It needs to be reclaimed – at the moment we link the flag with racism because of the actions of groups such as the BNP.

Jez: It has been suggested over recent years that football has helped to reclaim the flag of St George from the racists. Try telling that to the Portuguese students attacked in Thetford after the football team representing their country had the temerity to defeat an English one.

Ben: Both Billy Bragg and Morrissey have addressed this issue of reclaiming the flag from the racists in their music, but the fact that Morrissey remains a far-right pin-up, the lyrics to recent single ‘Irish Heart, English Blood’ interpreted as a statement of fierce nationalistic pride and xenophobic revulsion, suggests that such attempts have been far from successful. The St George’s Cross continues to be a potent symbol for the right. But does it have the same symbolic significance for everyone? Has it simply been appropriated by the right, or does it go deeper than that? Can the flag ever be reclaimed from its association with racism, or is this a necessarily impossible and therefore futile task?

Jez: As Thatcher draped her handkerchief over the freshly modernised British Airways tailfin she rejected multiculturalism that was deemed commercially and contemporarily necessary by the BA marketers. Ironic really, it was a case of conservatism over capitalism. She deemed the flag that had been replaced more important than anything else. What did the flag mean to her? If it was a symbol of national identity could it be the same sense of identity as every other British citizen (or subject)? I’d suggest not. Her successor, John Major, saw England as warm beer, red pillar boxes and cricket on the village green. The St George’s Cross represented his idyll. Therefore, if a flag purely represents the symbolism one personally attaches to it, surely it is harmless? No, flags have continued to be an effective political tool. Imagine the flag bearers of historical battles protected at all costs. Think of the terms involved: a flag is something that is rallied round, sworn allegiance to and then “flown” at half mast. The hundreds of scarlet flags flown at the Nuremberg rally were signifiers of a gravitas that was larger than individuals, just as the Stars and Stripes that George Bush wears on his lapel works in exactly the same way.

Ben: Of course, the enormous political significance of flags has most recently been highlighted by the furore caused by the draping of an American flag over the head of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. It spelt out the truth behind the invasion, symbolising not the advent of political and personal liberation but of colonial oppression.

Jez: Do the Portuguese students who were attacked see the flag as being a symbol of democracy and liberalism? Do democracy and liberalism really need symbols? Especially as flags are symbols of exclusivity. Imagine a world without flags and suddenly the world is a much more peaceful place. A flag that for one person is a symbol of liberalism is for another a means for aggression. Why transpose your integrity onto a piece of cloth?

Ben: As much as I agree with these arguments in principle, it seems to me that there remains an innate human need for a sense of belonging as well as for a sense of individuality and freedom. Get rid of flags and you deprive people of the most instantly recognisable symbol of national identity.

* A footnote. This article about Thetford which appeared in the Independent contains a prime example of what I was writing about a couple of weeks ago with regard to labels: "'I'm not a racist', said one man a few yards from the Red Lion, to which he gesticulates with his heavily tattooed arms: 'But these fuckin' people come over and they get all the houses and their kids are in the schools and they've got our jobs and they don't want us in their cafés. There's too many of them'." What exactly IS racism then, my friend?

(Thanks to Pete for the link.)