I have no idea whether or not Paulo Di Canio is a racist, just as I have no clue whether everyone who waddles through Trafalgar Square on May Day with a giant portrait of Stalin believes in the necessity of the Gulag or a bullet to the back of the head. I would, however, hesitate to put such people in positions where they have authority over people who their political heroes regarded as expendable.
“A fascist but not a racist.”
Those were the words the new manager of Sunderland football club Paolo Di Canio once used to describe himself and they are being bandied about by supporters of Di Canio to bat off criticism of his appointment as Sunderland boss.
Di Canio has the word “Dux”, the Latin equivalent of “Duce”, tattooed on his arm and he has in the past been pictured giving straight arm Roman salutes to Italian fans in his native country.
“I give the straight arm salute because it is a salute from a ‘camerata’ to ‘camerati’,” Di Canio said after one incident for which he was fined seven thousand Euros, making sure to use the Italian words for members of Benito Mussolini’s fascist movement.
Di Canio was appointed manager of Sunderland on Sunday afternoon after the sacking of Martin O’Neil. The most high profile reverberation so far from the decision was reported yesterday by the BBC, which said that former foreign secretary David Miliband had stood down from his post at Sunderland FC because of Di Canio’s “right-wing views”.
From much of the coverage one can surmise two things: Mr Di Canio is not a racist (just a fascist) and Mr Miliband has decided to stand down because the new Sunderland boss is “right-wing”.
And yet there is an elephant in the room. A fascist elephant, if you like.
The problem is that fascism without racism is a bit like wife beating without sexism – one is very much intrinsic to the other. Fascism is not comparable to being “a bit right-wing” like Jeremy Clarkson or Norman Tebbit. Fascism is an ideology based on ultra-nationalism which slips into racial chauvinism and bigotry like a hot knife moves through butter.
I have no idea whether or not Paulo Di Canio is a racist, just as I have no clue whether everyone who waddles through Trafalgar Square on May Day with a giant portrait of Stalin believes in the necessity of the Gulag or a bullet to the back of the head. I would, however, hesitate to put such people in positions where they have authority over people who their political heroes regarded as expendable.
Benito Mussolini rallied against Italians for having “no consciousness of race” and proudly boasted to his mistress on the eve of war with Britain that he had “been a racist since 1921”. There is also the small matter of his sending 6,806 Jews to concentration and death camps and promulgating the “Manifesto of Fascist Racism”, which forbade intermarriage along the lines of Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws.
The only real sense in which Mussolini was not a racist was in comparison to Hitler, who as it happens, he regarded as a teary-eyed “sentimentalist”.
Personally I’d like the bar to be set a little higher, thanks very much.
What an earth, then, do Sunderland football club think they are doing appointing a self-proclaimed fascist to any job at the football club, let alone a managerial role? More importantly, why do those involved in the decision believe they have any right to absolve supporters of Benito Mussolini of the historical consequences of their murderous ideology?
The answer appears to be that if one says the magic word “football” everything is fine. Appointing a self-proclaimed fascist who thinks Mussolini a “deeply principled individual” is fine. Each and every criticism of the above is “politics”, and therefore does not apply to the “beautiful game”.
85 Responses to “Paolo Di Canio: “a fascist but not a racist”. That’s ok then”
SadButMadLad
Why no complaints why Di Canio was at Swindon. Why no complaints about when he was a player at West Ham and other teams? Is it because David Milliband resigned because of Di Canio’s *past* beliefs that it is now something worth while talking about. Sorry, just because David Milliband made a statement about it doesn’t mean that you have any right to suddenly start bleating on about it. Di Canio’s views were well known in the past. Even the Guardian mentioned in when he was at Swindon.
As to Di Canio being fascist and not racist. Yes it is possible to be so. Fascism is primarily concerned with a dictatorial authoritarian style of government. A bit like how the past Soviet states were run. Fascism is only racist when you redefine the term racist to include a hatred of other countries. This is more xenophobia than racism. Extreme nationalism can mean that no immigration is allowed, even those of people with the same race, religion, and ethnicity. So you can see why Fascism is not really racist per se. If you need a clue as to why, look up Venn Diagrams.
Di Canio’s views and actions are more akin to that the group of scottish supporters who go around slanging off the Pope during matches.
Rob Croton
The politics in football is worrying in general. The economy that exists in football of bringing players from former colonies to metropoles and incorporating them in elite national/club football is worrying from a postcolonial perspective.
On the other side of nationalism/nationality, take a look at this story which came out just before Di Canio was hired http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/31/martin-oneill-sacking-coppell-criticism-sunderland – I’d personally like to see Coppell criticised as strongly as Di Canio has been, hiding behind ‘culture’ when what he really means is something more toxic.
Bear in mind that O’Neill is known for spending heaps of money on English/British players, and playing an ‘English style’ game. He’s very much of the old style of manager that British footballing culture idolises, the authoritarian ‘gaffer’ who decides all. The nationalism in Coppell’s discourse is not only obvious, but is a sign of the poisonous obsession with nationality in football.
If you take Di Canio in that context, he was hired to keep Sunderland in the EPL and save them from financial implosion (they have the 8th biggest wage budget in the EPL and I doubt they could get rid of most of their overpaid players and make any sort of money back) from relegation, and to keep them in the EPL because of the impending, ultra-lucrative TV deal. His politics are distasteful to say the least, but you can see why Sunderland hired him for footballing reasons. There’s no evidence that Di Canio’s been racist or oppressive in practice. When such evidence appears, we can rebuke SAFC for their decision. There’s a great deal of difference from the fascist politics of the 20s-40s (totally agree on your assessment), and the syncretic kind that survives in many forms today.
Rob Croton
The politics in football is worrying in general. The economy that exists in football of bringing players from former colonies to metropoles and incorporating them in elite national/club football is worrying from a postcolonial perspective.
On the other side of nationalism/nationality, take a look at this story which came out just before Di Canio was hired http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/31/martin-oneill-sacking-coppell-criticism-sunderland – I’d personally like to see Coppell criticised as strongly as Di Canio has been, hiding behind ‘culture’ when what he really means is something more toxic.
Bear in mind that O’Neill is known for spending heaps of money on English/British players, and playing an ‘English style’ game. He’s very much of the old style of manager that British footballing culture idolises, the authoritarian ‘gaffer’ who decides all. The nationalism in Coppell’s discourse is not only obvious, but is a sign of the poisonous obsession with nationality in football.
If you take Di Canio in that context, he was hired to keep Sunderland in the EPL and save them from financial implosion (they have the 8th biggest wage budget in the EPL and I doubt they could get rid of most of their overpaid players and make any sort of money back) from relegation, and to keep them in the EPL because of the impending, ultra-lucrative TV deal. His politics are distasteful to say the least, but you can see why Sunderland hired him for footballing reasons. There’s no evidence that Di Canio’s been racist or oppressive in practice. When such evidence appears, we can rebuke SAFC for their decision. There’s a great deal of difference from the fascist politics of the 20s-40s (totally agree on your assessment), and the syncretic kind that survives in many forms today.
Rob Croton
The politics in football is worrying in general. The economy that exists in football of bringing players from former colonies to metropoles and incorporating them in elite national/club football is worrying from a postcolonial perspective.
On the other side of nationalism/nationality, take a look at this story which came out just before Di Canio was hired http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/31/martin-oneill-sacking-coppell-criticism-sunderland – I’d personally like to see Coppell criticised as strongly as Di Canio has been, hiding behind ‘culture’ when what he really means is something more toxic.
Bear in mind that O’Neill is known for spending heaps of money on English/British players, and playing an ‘English style’ game. He’s very much of the old style of manager that British footballing culture idolises, the authoritarian ‘gaffer’ who decides all. The nationalism in Coppell’s discourse is not only obvious, but is a sign of the poisonous obsession with nationality in football.
If you take Di Canio in that context, he was hired to keep Sunderland in the EPL and save them from financial implosion (they have the 8th biggest wage budget in the EPL and I doubt they could get rid of most of their overpaid players and make any sort of money back) from relegation, and to keep them in the EPL because of the impending, ultra-lucrative TV deal. His politics are distasteful to say the least, but you can see why Sunderland hired him for footballing reasons. There’s no evidence that Di Canio’s been racist or oppressive in practice. When such evidence appears, we can rebuke SAFC for their decision. There’s a great deal of difference from the fascist politics of the 20s-40s (totally agree on your assessment), and the syncretic kind that survives in many forms today.
Rob Croton
The politics in football is worrying in general. The economy that exists in football of bringing players from former colonies to metropoles and incorporating them in elite national/club football is worrying from a postcolonial perspective.
On the other side of nationalism/nationality, take a look at this story which came out just before Di Canio was hired http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/mar/31/martin-oneill-sacking-coppell-criticism-sunderland – I’d personally like to see Coppell criticised as strongly as Di Canio has been, hiding behind ‘culture’ when what he really means is something more toxic.
Bear in mind that O’Neill is known for spending heaps of money on English/British players, and playing an ‘English style’ game. He’s very much of the old style of manager that British footballing culture idolises, the authoritarian ‘gaffer’ who decides all. The nationalism in Coppell’s discourse is not only obvious, but is a sign of the poisonous obsession with nationality in football.
If you take Di Canio in that context, he was hired to keep Sunderland in the EPL and save them from financial implosion (they have the 8th biggest wage budget in the EPL and I doubt they could get rid of most of their overpaid players and make any sort of money back) from relegation, and to keep them in the EPL because of the impending, ultra-lucrative TV deal. His politics are distasteful to say the least, but you can see why Sunderland hired him for footballing reasons. There’s no evidence that Di Canio’s been racist or oppressive in practice. When such evidence appears, we can rebuke SAFC for their decision. There’s a great deal of difference from the fascist politics of the 20s-40s (totally agree on your assessment), and the syncretic kind that survives in many forms today.