Well, yeah. You'll presumably be finding it a bit difficult to attract international talent at the moment.
This is not even a little bit xenophobic ! IMO what a silly suggestion. As far as i am concerned it is very relevant as it points to Saints being a club that is fostering our native talent AS WELL AS some top young talent from other countries. Its great when Spiderman, Rameriez or Guly score for Saints. But it would be pretty bad if England was not nuturing its own talent wouldnt it ?
I personally couldn't give a flying **** what the nationalities of players that play or score for us are.
On balance it probably is xenophobic, what else is the point? If it's a piece about potential England players, fair enough, but then why would it count only goalscorers? I don't care what nationality our goalscorers are, but this piece cares only about that, so yeah, how isn't it xenophobic?
Think everyone is reading too much into this. Goalscorers are easy to measure...so the author found an interesting stat. Think we are all twitching about xenophobia/racism...you can come up with interesting facts without having a hidden agenda.
I'm usually one of the first to point to racism or xenophobia, but I don't think there's any of that in this article. People care about the quality of English players in the Premier League because they want the England team to do well. I know it's only about goalscorers, but it's one statistic that they've found that looks good for England.
I'm not saying it's a big problem in this case, just responding to dman's claim that it's not even a little bit xenophobic. It is undeniably fixated on English players for no discernible reason other than it is what their (probably xenophobic) readers want to read. I don't think pointing that out is 'twitching'. As I said, having an article about the number of English players in the context of the national team is fair enough, but I don't see how this is relevant to that, and nobody has yet been able to point out how it is.
In this case i suggest that you carefully re-read all of my post without extracting a few words and using them to wind up one of your racist-related arguements. Even Joe has dealt with this article in the correct context. However there a few of you on here that are more flipping twitchy than our old friend Harry.
Oh good grief. I understood your post perfectly well the first time thanks, and I accurately quoted you. Joe's interpretation is only 'correct' in your view because it is one you share. That doesn't automatically make my view less valid. I merely stated I agreed with fatletiss that it is a little xenophobic, and I've given reasons for that which no-one has been able to refute. I didn't use the word 'racist' at all and I didn't say anything about the character of those who disagree, or paint their view as in any way illegitimate. So I don't quite understand what you're so upset about.
I agree that a good proportion of the readership of this particular paper could have xenophobic views and would enjoy an article like this because of those views, but I don't think that the article itself is intrinsically xenophobic. Sports coverage is always full of pointless statistics and, like you say, this one doesn't make much of a reflection on the England national team. I just think it's a case of a poor journalist in a shoddy newspaper trying to scrap something interesting together, and I doubt he put a whole lot of thought into it.
You're probably right, but not putting a lot of thought into it doesn't mean it isn't informed by xenophobic attitudes. I wasn't the one to first use that word, I might have chosen nationalistic or patriotic instead, the point is whatever word you use, there can really be no denying that whatever the intention of the author, it pushes all those buttons (and to be honest I think that was probably intentional). If any of you are offended by that interpretation then that's on you frankly, I've said nothing remotely offensive.
Be careful when comparing patriotism to xenophobia. Some members of this board don't like it when you point that out.
For a start i am not upset about anything on this website, let alone your typed thoughts which are meaningless to me. The definition of xenophobia is fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners. I didnt see anything in the article that was the basis of the original post to suggest that this was the case at all - which is what i said in my rely to FLT. It is simply a very simple stat that points out that Saints have had more goals scored by English players than any other in the Prem. Being a Saints supporter who lives in Southampton, which is in England, i am chuffed about that.
Listen fella, it is my opinion. It is not a silly suggestion. I have commented purely because I don't believe the nationality matters. If you can't disagree without belittling, then don't debate. Of course it would be bad if England didn't nuture it's only talent .... which by the way it doesn't do enough of! It still doesn't get away from the fact that my opinion is the article is a "little" xenophobic. In the clip shown, there is no reason given for naming the team with the most English scorers. Why are they doing it?
No the definition of xenophobia is an irrational dislike of foreigners, phobia means aversion, not always fear. So you have asserted something which is factually wrong. I'm sure you will agree that just because you don't see something doesn't mean you're entitled to attack others who do see it. He's from Liverpool. He only qualifies for Scotland because of a Scottish grandparent, so I'd say he counts as English.
Excuse me - in Collins Dictionary the definition is given as ' fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners '. Therefore i have not asserted something that is factually wrong. There may be other definitions but i am taking Collins over you any day. I am sure that you will agree that i have not 'attacked' anybody !
